"4 FU RRAL EVIE SEDER EOHDER FES SPER AERIS TTY TR VOTE ROE We Oe 
gu sevevoucetonrvoserseves vert etoe tir thl 
Tee T ehh ceeded ch Lbmenedamamadsbdtdess tdebecaaabetdsesd 
fepieticpeae tote 
reteeensesen 








NC hekachon 


? . yarwree ersess 
ayereve 
wlotics Darschiyemeeanpesness MPUPLTEPE INH FEAT SAR COS ESTA 
i rte! ‘ 
PRPRPTPRIE EDK FEE: 
ePRoemenna it seher stary 


a ee one toe . 
apyepenvoerss eegustnt 
eepene 
peshtere 

ees b 


See 


jee Py 
ve pesesecasesesegat eee sesi 
ing 


x sSestaises 
Seotmsegnen shry ra sugtyy Pus 
Rrrrenrtnaress 
eyelet! 


: * 

SANS R PRET EH HERR Te Te Tem eLe hye 
bebo Se tadilehtahanhe poderterietdes 
Sihcacledeban a 


ob dodo pes bp 4ebp bh pesrtetew 4m 


Sosceans 


Teves ey ey ty re 

i 5 

+f 
eesetelerererheseoe its cavagersanparaseinas ri suse 


pA da tatgtg Maange 


seer 


pi 


useeveasy 


* 
nero bed dle he eet: 


oboe at sage 


peri oeseesrocss: snarl 


Freee bg 


pega bsg [eh 
I bye tenes 


tet an 
poet 


wtapavotcendl jaf 


’ . ’ r 
reaeTe ah > SF EHP AS OPREHER IE ARE RTRSD ERAT ET TY SEEPIRT HINER 





Sls ataeedddatel 
Lage craton nr esyr ne be ctr 





ereristree sitet vue 
400 
RA TORETH Cp 9G Re DANES ited 


oon tha F RIT | 


Pryereeres: 


har rereperteareet Nery eterey 


vie eres Siocon steuseresaee 


ete (ye rte be ae. 
ab ibad face 


ste eete tet ema, 


Per itikoars 


leheneheasnes 
Lb eee e tee. 


eweenans nee arr eer s 
rere ewe pasngad menrasesnriscPeviyianepes 





= ne neind ns 


eattit 


+4 sesteri(naashans 


oon . - 
lghayers eseeversyererismate net elated) 
. 





oe 


eee 


i eaavt et yeas 
pogperesrsurees 


sthbeer 

rrivere raviretetetre 

eereresere eter set 
arenas +s 


Kon OF PRINGE %» 

bs NOV 9 1926 | 

Ley ww 
LOGIGAL St¥ 






Division HVSO89 
Section . FS 4 








PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


& 


eine O«e 


THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
NEW YORK - BOSTON * CHICAGO = DALLAS 
ATLANTA * SAN FRANCISCO 


MACMILLAN & CO., Linrrep 


LONDON + BOMBAY + CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 


THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Lrtp, 
TORONTO 


PROHIBITION 
acd bad fal De. debater 


YN OV9 192 ¥ 
e 
x) OcroaL sew 






IRVING FISHER 


ts 
PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, YALE UNIVERSITY 


jQew Pork 
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 


1926 
All rights reserved 


CopyricutT, 1926, 
Bry THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 





Set up and electrotyped. 
Published September, 1926, 
Reprinted, October, 1926, twice. 


PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


TO 
THE MEMORY OF 


CHARLES W. ELIOT 
WHO, IN HIS FAR-SEEING LEADERSHIP, 
DID NOT OVERLOOK THE MOVEMENT 
OF WHICH THIS BOOK TREATS. 


“Wh 


hou al ». 
a 4) 

Ray ea wk Gite 

f ' 





PREFACE 


This book is the outgrowth of my testimony at 
the Hearings of the Sub-committee of the Commit- 
tee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate in 
April, 1926. 

It embodies the notes which I have been collect- 
ing on the alcohol problem for full twenty years— 
during which time I have radically changed my 
attitude toward Prohibition. 

It also endeavors to cover all the important data, 
on both sides of the controversy, which were pre- 
sented at the Senate hearings. 

For help in the preparation of the book I am 
deeply indebted to many persons, especially to 
Herbert B. Brougham, Robert E. Corradini, Karl 
G. Karsten, and Emily F. Robbins. 

IrRvVING FISHER. 


Yale University, 
New Haven, Conn., August, 1926. 


rte 
Aare Peas i aN MAY A 


Re Ly HARES A REPOS 












f, ‘ 5 a ¥ 
i v AIA é ANE kesh i va 
i) if y Vee My 
§ : Vichy 
\ 
i) pata he fie 
) | ve i* tity aA A 
‘ ) iy 
; 4 Ha ne + 
, ] Ny, vii 
; ty ? 
t ' a? 
{ 
, | SVAN 
ty ‘ Ma TT 
yay : : 
Wark ry j 
wx j 
ht f 
Pha a, 
i sy 
ey, 
Wi? 
iF % 
: a 
rt aay? 
; 
Easy, 
a) i\ 
iat 
j 4 rate 
i) f ‘ 
ae i 
UN ; coh 
ar 
‘ ey Loree 
a } y hia 
oh ey ; i 
NE 
Myre) 
ae nyt 
ay Heul 
heuer ' 
q ’ 
. j H 
aif i 
} 
We : nt he At 
I , a 
ve oS 7 ; 
i / ‘ 
MEL go J ‘ i 
, A \ 
ys 2 Pe 
th 
; 
iu f : | 
rey i i) : 
1) i 
Paty : 
7 
be 5 
q 
E ’ 
Pray : r ¥) 
4 me | 
% caTy 
: \ ' i 
: om 
, p24 é 
; y 6 
neat 
Ly } 
2 7. 
it ‘ 
Ti ‘ 
Ai 
‘i Ae, : 
ai Vee UL AWh Eh. ¥ 
‘ se af ( Vv 2 
Bult 
j i 
) a ae ‘ 
F hi yh } 
ie ee te ayia 
Paty 





ey Ai: Mis a CRM) 
) Ly fax Avy rad AST 


SUGGESTIONS FOR READERS 


1. The numerical references in parentheses fol- 
lowing quotations are to the “Index of Authors and 
Titles” at the end of the book. 


2. Those wishing merely to skim this book may 
read the Charts only. They are self-explanatory, 
even without the supplementary reading matter 
below each. 

3. The Charts should not be omitted by any 
reader. 

4, Those chiefly interested in the practical work- 


ing and shortcomings of Prohibition should read 
Chapters II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, XI, XIII. 


5. Those chiefly interested in the “personal 
liberty” argument should read Chapters XII, XIV. 

6. Those chiefly interested in the New York 
Referendum should read Chapter XVI. 


> ke 


eae 
es 


eee 


at 


her 


lA sae ta 


4, 
fy 7 
A | 
J 
y 


Ui ee 





CONTENTS 


I. How I Became INTERESTED 


II. New Recrurrs AMone DrINKERS FALL 
Orr 


III. Surerx, STATISTICIAN . eye 
IV. FurtHer Errors or Mr. SHirkK . 
V. -Drinkinc AMONG THE YOUTH 
VI. Pusiic SENTIMENT 
VII. Tue Passine or THE SALoon 
VIII. AtcoHot anp LONGEVITY 
IX. ALcoHoL A PoIson 
X. Tue Hycrentc Goop 
XI. THE Economic Goop 
XII. Prrsonau anp Socrau LIBERTY 
XIII. Tur Socrat Goop 
XIV. “Prrsonau Liperty’—CoMMERCIALIZED . 
XV. FurtTHeErR ACTIVITIES OF THE BREWERS 
XVI. Proposaus OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 
XVII. Prouririon Can Be ENFORCED 
List or AuTHoRS, TITLES, AND PUBLISHERS 
INDEX 


f 


Wat iat Pa 
hal ie AHS 






p 
; j 
4 ve 
: ay 
nt } 
7 . 
fa. 
Peer icy ae 
ed ix 
Ak 
rh) ‘ 
its 
2 
ag 
nA 
‘ 
+ 









iA : 
; 1h SAP ve a ae 
an A ie j 
| PEON Li bi: 
; aay ee Ae vig ti) Mae Rs Ae a ; 
} ; 13) ‘ .\e Bf! h ity =e a 
a i sae 


PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 





PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


CHAPTER I 
How I Became INTERESTED 


My Own Health 


It is now twenty-five years since I was first 
attracted to the alcohol problem. When starting 
for Colorado in 1899 to repair my health I was 
warned by Dr. Trudeau not to let the Colorado 
doctors give me whisky; for at that time alcohol 
was still regarded by many physicians as a valuable 
medicine for numerous diseases. 

While recovering my health I undertook a sys- 
tematic study of how to get, and keep, well. In 
the course of this study I soon found that, accord- 
ing to the best evidence, alcohol is a physiological 
poison, and out of place in the human body. This 
conclusion is now commonly accepted by reputable 
physiologists. Some of the evidence for it is given 
in this book. 

Having thus reached the conclusion that total 
abstinence, rather than “temperance,” is the truer 
ideal, I soon became, for the sake of my own health, 
a teetotaler except for occasional sips of wine at 
my friends’ tables. I also ceased to serve wine at 

1 


2 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


my own table except when entertaining those WAGs 
I knew, especially desired and expected it. 

I next applied the results of this study to my 
own professional subject, economics. I saw that 
the use of alcoholics was economically costly and 
wasteful to the nation, and in more ways than one. 


Solution, Education of Youth 


The problem of how best to reduce this waste 
puzzled me, just as it is now puzzling many other 
people. I was then far from thinking that Pro- 
hibition was the best solution. I knew that all laws 
affecting personal habits are resented by those whose 
personal habits are thereby reflected on, and that 
such laws are, therefore, difficult to enforce. I real- 
ized then, as I realize now, that laws without suffi- 
cient public sentiment behind them are apt to be- 
come a dead letter and to lead to disrespect for law 
in general. It was clear, therefore, that, even if 
Prohibition were eventually desirable—which I did 
not then believe—the first and most important step 
toward the great objective (reduction in the flow 
of alcohol down human throats) must be the educa- 
tion of the public. I even hoped, with youthful 
enthusiasm, that such moral suasion would be rapid 
and effective, and tried to do my part. 

It soon became apparent, however, that there was 
a flaw in this program—the same flaw as in the pro- 
gram of moral suasion as a sufficient solution of the 
problem of narcotic drugs. In fact, the alcohol 


HOW I BECAME INTERESTED 3 


problem shaped itself in my mind as simply a spe- 
cial case of the narcotic problem. 

The flaw in the moral suasion program as a com- 
plete solution of the problem of narcotics, alcohol | 
included, is that the will is weakened by the drug 
habit. 

Ordinarily, there is little or no use in preaching to 
a dope-fiend or a drunkard. His reason is con- 
vinced, but his will is not strong enough to follow 
his reason. His will has been destroyed by the drug 
habit and it is too late for the drug habit to be 
destroyed by the will. 

I had noted that, occasionally, strong religious 
appeal does result in “conversion,” as the Salvation 
Army is demonstrating every day. But no prac- 
tical reformer expects any wholesale results from 
confirmed addicts. On the other hand, to the mod- 
erate users whose wills are only moderately impaired, 
the appeal to become total abstainers is itself only 
moderate. ‘The moderate user generally sees no 
need of “reformation.” He does not realize the 
subtle, steady damage being done to his body and 
mind, nor the seriousness of the risk he is running 
of becoming a confirmed addict. 

Noting these things, I came to believe that the 
only class left to appeal to is the young, who have 
not yet reached even the half-way stages of the 
moderate users. The teaching of the effects of 
alcohol in the public schools, under the influence of 
the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, seemed 


4 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


to me the basic educational fact underlying alcohol 
reform in the United States. 


Also Necessary to Outlaw Saloon 


But such education, if not supplemented by legis- 
lation, is painfully slow. Moreover, without help 
from legislation, any such education of children is 
sure to be largely offset by the examples of their 
elders and the allurements of the saloon. It be- 
came clear to me that it was the saloon which kept 
up and increased the liquor habit. The real prob- 
lem is the problem of new recruits. We may well 
forget the confirmed addict of this generation if we 
can prevent others from taking his place in the next. 
The great objective is to break the chain by which 
the custom of drinking is passed on from generation 
to generation. The use of liquor is no more natural 
than the use of opium. When either is once dis- 
continued it can stay discontinued. 

As a practical student I reached the inevitable 
conclusion that, besides education, there must be 
some legislation to lessen, or abolish, the opportu- 
nity of the saloon-keeper, the brewer, etc., to en- 
snare new recruits. 

Accordingly I studied the dispensary system and 
other devices to remove or reduce the profit-motive 
and diminish the advertising of liquors. These 
devices have undoubtedly some value in Scandi- 
navia, but are disappointing as a complete solution 
of the problem. 


HOW I BECAME INTERESTED 5 


Reluctantly Converted to Prohibition 


At last I was reluctantly compelled to conclude 
that Prohibition is the ultimate solution, when 
public sentiment is adequate to enforce it. What 
finally converted me was the experience of the West- 
ern states which tried it. I was particularly im- 
pressed by the experience of the State of Washing- 
ton. Certain cities there voted against State Con- 
stitutional Prohibition but were defeated by the 
country districts. Later, however, when the inevi- 
table attempt came to “modify,” and to permit so- 
called “light wines and beer,” these same cities 
voted dry! 

The reason was the surprising prosperity which 
followed State Prohibition. One city editor, who 
had predicted business depression and had pointed 
to definite saloon sites as destined to remain vacant 
and for rent, had the manhood to confess his error 
and advocate that Prohibition should remain unim- 
paired. This sort of experience beat down my con- 
servatism. I found then, as I have found since, that 
we cautious Easterners have much to learn from the 
venturesome West. 


War Conference on Alcohol 


A new impulse was given to my study of the 
alcohol problem by the war. When the war broke 
out, I offered my services to the Council of National 
_ Defense. I expected to be assigned to some strictly 


6 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


economic task; but was asked to call a conference 
on Alcohol to meet with the conference being called 
by Colonel Snow on Venereal Disease, since Alcohol] 
and Venereal Disease are always the twin obstacles 
to the soldiers’ fitness to fight. 

Accordingly, I called such a conference of leading 
economists and physicians at the New Willard Hotel 
in Washington in April, 1917. The conference rec- 
ommended two war measures: 

(1) The establishing of a Dry Zone around each 
Army Cantonment, and 

(2) War-time Prohibition. 

The first recommendation was transmitted, 
through various sub-committees, to the Council of 
National Defense; was approved by the Council, 
and was finally enacted into law. It was, I believe, 
a very important factor in keeping up the efficiency 
of our soldiers. 


Brewers Block War-time Prohibition 


The second recommendation, that for War-time 
Prohibition, was likewise approved by the four suc- 
cessive committees through which it had to pass on 
its way to the Council of National Defense. Then 
something happened! 

The recommendation was scheduled to be pre- 
sented to the Council on April 17, 1917, together 
with that for a Dry Zone around the Cantonments. 
The spokesman to present the matter was selected. 
The small sub-committee that had it in charge met 


HOW I BECAME INTERESTED 7 


a half-hour before the Council convened in order to 
rehearse the program. 

We were to have been met by Dr. Franklin Mar- 
tin of the Council. He did not appear, however, 
until the half-hour had expired. He then said, 
cryptically, that only the Dry Zone recommenda- 
tion could be presented. Thus War-time Prohibi- 
tion went by the board—for the time. 

Afterward, on inquiry, I learned what had hap- 
pened. In the course of sounding out public opinion 
I had sent several hundred telegrams to business 
leaders and others, asking whether they favored 
War-time Prohibition. Most business men, and 
practically all economists, approved of Prohibition 
as a war measure. It so happened that one of the 
telegrams, reaching a business man who disapproved 
of the proposal, was handed to a brewer. 

The brewers’ forces had long been superbly organ- 

ized for action and they proceeded at once to train 
their machine-guns on the members of the Council 
of National Defense. One member, Mr. Gompers, 
I was told, received fifty telegrams in a single day, 
protesting against any War-time Prohibition. Inti- 
mations or threats were made that, if any such 
action were taken, the Council of National Defense 
would be put out of business. 

Daniel Willard, chairman of the Council, though 
personally favorable to Prohibition, felt it unwise, 
as did others, to permit the matter to be presented, 
and Dr. Martin was requested to call it off. 


8 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


The special interest of the brewers won against 
the general interest of the nation. 

Later, a permanent Sub-committee of the Council 
was appointed on Alcohol, and I was made chair- 
man. This Committee also favored War-time Pro- 
hibition. But its recommendations had no chance 
even to reach the Council. The brewers had effec- 
tually blocked any such action. 


Blocked Again by Filibuster 


The result was that those favoring War-time Pro- 
hibition—including the members of the Sub-commit- 
tee just mentioned, namely, Dr. Haven Emerson, 
Dr. Eugene L. Fisk, Professor Alonzo Taylor, Rev. 
Charles Stelzle, and myself—took steps to press the 
matter directly with Congress. This had already 
been independently undertaken by the Anti-Saloon 
League. 

The importance of War-time Prohibition for food 
conservation was conclusively proved, when Profes- 
sor Alonzo Taylor showed that the barley used in 
beer production destroyed potentially eleven million 
loaves of bread a day. 

In Congress the brewers’ opposition again pre- 
sented itself. But, at last, Congressman Randall 
succeeded in so amending the Lever Food bill as to 
provide for War-time Prohibition. 

This food bill, with the War-time Prohibition 
amendment attached, passed the House of Repre- 
sentatives, but was blocked in the Senate by the 
brewing influences. The instant the House passed 


HOW I BECAME INTERESTED g 


the bill, literally a trainload of brewers swarmed 
into Washington. As was subsequently brought 
out by a Senate investigation, the Washington 
Times was bought almost overnight by a well- 
known editor with money “loaned” to him, without 
interest, by C. W. Feigenspan, President of the 
United States Brewers Association (4, pp. 9-10). 
Senator Penrose of Pennsylvania, a notorious Wet, 
und others threatened to prevent the passage of the 
food bill until, or unless, the War-time Prohibition 
clause was eliminated, and they sought to conceal 
their own guilt in delaying that measure by trying 
to cast the responsibility for delay on the other side. 
On one occasion Senator Penrose made a speech defi- 
nitely accusing the Drys of delaying the passage of 
the bill, whereupon Senator Sheppard, for the Drys, 
stated that his side was ready for a vote then and 
there, and moved for unanimous consent to take the 
vote immediately. Senator Penrose looked sheep- 
ishly around to find some friend willing to object to 
such unanimous consent. But his friends merely 
smiled at his predicament and he was forced, amid 
laughter, to object himself and thereby to accept 
the responsibility for delay. He knew that to pre- 
vent a vote was, in fact, the only way to defeat War- 
time Prohibition, for there were plenty of votes in 
the Senate to pass it if it could be brought to a vote. 
What was happening was what so often happens 
in our Senate, with its antiquated rules making it 
_ possible for a minority to block legislation by fili- 
buster. When, as in war time, quick action is essen- 


10 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


tial, an unpatriotic and selfish minority has the 
country by the throat. 

It was imperative that the Lever Food bill should 
be passed at once. The War-time Prohibition fea- 
tures of the bill were important, but not so impor- 
tant as other features. 

It soon appeared that, in view of the attitude of 
the Wets in the Senate, the food bill would be 
delayed indefinitely unless the prohibition clauses 
were eliminated. Accordingly, President Wilson re- 
quested the Drys, through a letter addressed to the 
Anti-Saloon League, to withdraw these prohibition 
clauses. 

I remember sitting up most of a June night in 
1917 laboring with the Anti-Saloon League leaders 
to persuade them to accede to the President’s re- 
quest, in the interest of immediate food legislation, 
and in the expectation of bringing up War-time 
Prohibition again as a separate measure. 

As is well known, the President’s request was 
heeded. War-time Prohibition once more went 
down to defeat. 

It was the brewers, primarily, who had won; for 
their influence had caused the filibuster that im- 
pelled the President to make his request. 


Brewers Hoist with Their Own Petard 
It was as an indirect result of this second defeat of 
War-time Prohibition that Constitutional Prohibi- 
tion came about! The brewers found that, unwit- 


HOW I BECAME INTERESTED 11 


tingly, they had jumped out of the frying pan into 
the fire! 

Personally I had been very reluctant to see Con- 
stitutional Prohibition tried until War-time Prohi- 
bition had been tried first. To me, Prohibition was, 
and is, merely an experiment in the long fight 
against alcohol; and I feared to see that experiment 
tried permanently and irrevocably until after it had 
been tested temporarily. 

My own program and that of the committees with 
which I had worked was to get War-time Prohibi- 
tion enacted on its merits as a war measure for the 
duration of the war, and for one year thereafter. 

Then, on the basis of the record of War-time Pro- 
hibition, and after all war hysteria was over, Per- 
manent Prohibition might properly be submitted 
to the people for their deliberate and final de- 
cision. 

But we all know what happens to the best laid 
plans of mice and men. Neither my plans to take 
one little step first, nor the brewers’ plans to crush 
out all Prohibition, were to be realized. 


National Prohibition Comes Too Soon 
What actually happened was that Constitutional 
Prohibition came first. The resolution submitting 
it to the States passed the Senate August 1, 1917, 
and the House December 18, 1917. 
War-time Prohibition did come eventually. But 
when it came not only had Constitutional Prohibi- 


12 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


tion been provided for, but the war itself was over} 
President Wilson signed the bill November 21, 1918, 
and the law became operative July 1, 1919. One 
could scarcely imagine a more illogical program. 

The reason was that the Senators who had acceded 
to President Wilson’s request to withdraw the War- 
time Prohibition clauses from the Food Act thereby 
so disappointed and angered their dry constituents 
that these Senators felt constrained to do something 
to set themselves right. 

And the Anti-Saloon League very astutely took 
advantage of the situation to propose the Act sub- 
mitting the Eighteenth Amendment. Other im- 
portant agencies which helped to bring that 
Amendment about were the Women’s Christian 
Temperance Union, the various church temperance 
organizations, especially the Methodist, the Metho- 
dist Church South, the Baptist, and the Presby- 
terian, the Order of Good Templars, and the Prohi- 
bition party. 

It was easy even for wet Senators to let this act 
pass, on the theory that it did not really enact Pro- 
hibition, but merely submitted it to the States, 

The Act was passed and Constitutional Prohibi- 
tion was on its way. 

When three-quarters of the States had ratified, the 
Amendment became a part of the Constitution. 
But under it Prohibition was not to be effective until 
one year later, namely, January 17, 1920. 


HOW I BECAME INTERESTED 13 


War-time Prohibition After War Time 


Meantime, the measure for War-time Prohibition 
had been slowly making progress in Congress, in 
spite of all the opposition and delays; and after the 
Eighteenth Amendment was adopted and ratified 
by the States that opposition became helpless. 

The result was that, though the war was over, the 
long pending War-time Prohibition bill was finally 
passed as a means of filling in the gap between the 
adoption of Constitutional Prohibition and its tak- 
ing effect. 

This was pretty hard on the brewers, who had 
counted on a year’s breathing space; but the brewers 
received and deserved scant sympathy at that junc- 
ture. | 

At a meeting in Atlantic City soon after these 
events, Wayne B. Wheeler paid me the somewhat 
doubtful compliment of having “done more to bring 
about War-time Prohibition than any other man 
who wears shoe leather.” ‘“War-time” Prohibition, 
as such, never really existed. Nor did the act finally 
passed, and called War-time Prohibition, ever serve 
as a preliminary experiment by which we might 
judge of the value of Permanent Prohibition. 

Evidently Constitutional Prohibition came on 
the country somewhat prematurely. That is to 
say, it came before certain sections, notably the 
East and the great cities, were prepared for it by 
education. 


14 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


Why Turn Back Now? 

But while, according to a logical program, Con- 
stitutional Prohibition was premature, can we and 
ought we, as a practical proposition, at this late 
date, go back and begin all over, only to end, in 
all probability, in Prohibition again at a later time, 
after the uselessness of other, halfway, measures 
shall have been demonstrated anew? 

May it not be more practical to go forward instead 
of backward, and to do now the educating after 
Prohibition, which, by rights, should have been done 
before Prohibition? 

Certainly, before taking any radical step, we 
ought to weigh carefully the facts presented to us 
during the last six years. We must “face the facts” 
—the facts good and bad, favorable and unfavor- 
able, and be led by what they reveal. 

That is the object of this book. If Prohibition 
at its worst, during these first trying years when 
New York, for instance, was far from ready for it, 
and when, consequently, it has proved so bewilder- 
ing and offensive to many good people, is neverthe- 
less actually accomplishing its main purpose of sup- 
pressing the saloon and lessening the use of alcohol, 
we may well think twice before giving it up until 
it is tried out further. 

The most important question of fact is whether 
the new recruits among the youth are more or less 
numerous under Prohibition. In Chapter II new 
evidence, never before presented, will be given on 
this question. 


CHAPTER II 
New Recruits AMonGc Drinkers FAuu OFF 


Enter the Moderation League 


During the last six years in which we have 
been under National Prohibition, its imposition by 
the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act 
have won distinguished foes. The Moderation 
League, which presented to the Senatorial Sub-com- 
mittee on the Judiciary in Washington during 
April, 1926, “A National Survey of Conditions under 
Prohibition, 1925” (1, pp. 339-365),* unlike earlier 
societies opposed to measures prohibiting or restrict- 
ing the liquor traffic, is not made up of brewers 
and distillers. However they might unwittingly be 
subjected to the influences of the brewers, and, as 
I shall show later, be used in their interest, the 
eminent gentlemen of the Moderation League are 
personally above reproach. 

The chairman of the board of the Moderation 
League is Austen G. Fox. On its executive committee 
are able and distinguished men—E. N. Brown, Pres- 
ident of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Com- 

*For full references see “List of Authors and Titles” at end 


- of book. 
15 


16 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


pany; Franklin Remington, chairman of the board 
of the Foundation Company, and George Zabriskie. 
Among its members are John G. Agar, an eminent 
lawyer; Dr. William H. Welch and Dr. Llewellys F. 
Barker, of Johns Hopkins; Dr. Charles L. Dana, 
neurologist; Gano Dunn, President of the J. G. 
White Corporation; William N. Dykman, President 
of the New York State Bar Association; the Right 
Reverend Charles Fiske, Bishop of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church of Central New York; Haley 
Fiske, President of the Metropolitan Life Insur- 
ance Company; Dr. Samuel W. Lambert, formerly 
Dean of the faculty, College of Physicians and Sur- 
geons; Henry 8. Pritchett, President of the Car- 
negie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach- 
ing; James Speyer, banker; William C. Redfield, 
Secretary of Commerce under President Wilson; 
Dr. George David Stewart, President of the New 
York Academy of Medicine, and Elihu Root, Sec- 
retary of State under President Roosevelt (1, pp. 
340-341). 

This group of representative men has done a cour- 
ageous thing, and what they have to say in separ 
rating themselves from the position of support of 
National Prohibition that is taken by the great 
majority of the churches and their leaders, heads of 
educational institutions, captains of finance and of 
business, and administrative officers of the states 
and nation, for their own sakes and in the public 
Interest, merits careful attention. They state their 


NEW DRINKERS FALL OFF 17 


aim to be, “The restoration of temperance” (1, p. 
340). 

In pointing to the admitted abuses under the Pro- 
hibition law, they state that it lacks public support. 
And they quote this pronouncement of Arthur 
Twining Hadley, President Emeritus of Yale Uni- 
versity: 

When the people as a body are of an orderly 
and law-abiding disposition and the methods of 
government are defective, it is often more im- 
portant to focus public opinion on these defects 
and correct them than to try to persuade the 
nation to accept laws which do not have public 
opinion behind them (1, p. 341). 

Moreover, they present the following passage 
from the address by President Calvin Coolidge to 
the American Bar Association, August 10, 1922: 

In a republic the law reflects, rather than 
makes, the standard of conduct. The attempt 
to dragoon the body when the need is to con- 
vince the soul will end only in revolt. 

And they cite this conclusion from the report of 
the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in Amer- 
ica (2, p. 65), dated September, 1925: 

If infractions of the law incident to the retail | 
trade in liquor should continue on the present 
scale, nothing but a sweeping change in public 
opinion can prevent the effectual nullification 
of the National Prohibition Act* (1, p. 341). 


* This Report was not accepted by some of the largest Denom- 
inations of the Federal Council of Churches, notably the Metho- 
. dists and Baptists. 


18 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


The eminent gentlemen of the Moderation 
League, and the important body of public opinion 
in all walks of life to which they appeal, may not 
have observed with patience, or at all, the later dec- 
laration made by the administrative committee of 
the Federal Council of Churches, in October, 1925: 


That the policy of Prohibition is the delib- 
erately and permanently established policy of 
this nation; that this policy has not failed, but 
on the contrary has already yielded results 
which fully justify its adoption; that the liquor 
traffic and the saloon must not come back again; 
and that the churches must set themselves with 
new purpose to see that Prohibition is enforced 
by law and sustained by the national conscience. 


“Face the Facts” 

The Association Against the Prohibition Amend- 
ment and the Moderation League tell us to “face 
the facts.” So be it. To be mentally honest, we 
must frankly face all the facts. Some of these are 
not pleasant for Prohibitionists to face; others are 
not pleasant for its opponents. There seem to me 
to be nine great facts, or groups of facts, to face. 
These constitute the outline of this book: 


(1) The present situation of imperfect enforce- 
ment is intolerable. 

(2) Conditions are not, however, as bad as com- 
monly represented. 

(3) Prohibition has accomplished much good, 
hygienically, economically, and socially. 


NEW DRINKERS FALL OFF 19 


(4) The “personal liberty” argument is largely 
illusory. 

(5) We cannot accomplish what the opponents 
of Prohibition really want by amending the Vol- 
stead Act, without thereby violating the Eighteenth 
Amendment. 

(6) To repeal the Eighteenth Amendment is out 
of the question. 

(7) To nullify it would mean disrespect for law 
of the most demoralizing kind. 

(8) Therefore the only practicable solution is to 
enforce the law. 

(9) Enforcement is a practical possibility. 


I shall take up these nine points in their order. 
As to the first point—that is, the seriousness of the 
present situation—I have nothing to add to what the 
Moderation League presented in its summing up 
before the Senate Sub-committee on the Judiciary, 
together with such facts as were brought before 
the Sub-committee as to defects in law enforcement. 
These were presented by Federal District Attorney 
Emory R. Buckner, Senator William C. Bruce of 
Maryland, Senator Edge of New Jersey, and others. 
When referred to in these pages these facts will not 
be scanted. 


The Moderation League Exaggerates 


We turn here to the second point. What the 
public most lacks is sufficiently striking evidence 


20 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


that an exaggerated impression has been created 
as to the alleged failure of Prohibition. Some peo- 
ple now imagine that we actually have more drink- 
ing, drunkenness, crime, vice, corruption, and dis- 
respect for law than before Prohibition. These 
people have certainly been misled, and I have care- 
fully ascertained in what manner they and the emi- 
nent members of the Moderation League have been 
misled. It is unfortunate that the League’s mem- 
bers failed to consult a professor of mathematical 
statistics before lending the prestige of their names 
to the figures of Mr. Shirk. 

Stanley Shirk, research director of the Moderation 
League, is a lawyer who evidently needs statistical 
training. The chief exhibit of his report, as spon- 
sored by the Moderation League, charts the arrests 
for drunkenness in 350 cities and towns of the 
United States from 1914 to 1920, inclusive. The 
curve of Mr. Shirk’s chart covers the period of the 
licensed saloon from 1914 to 1916, inclusive; of war- 
time restrictions of alcoholic beverages from 1917 
to 1919, inclusive, and, under the National Prohibi- 
tion law, of the first five full years of its applica- 
tion. With the extent of accuracy of this chart and 
of companion exhibits, I shall deal in the next 
chapter. 


Repeaters and First Offenders 
Among all of his exhibits and charts Mr. Shirk 
has failed to separate the records of first convic- 
tions for drunkenness from those of confirmed 


NEW DRINKERS FALL OFF 21 


drunkards—old rounders and “repeaters” who may 
be expected to persist in their potations under any 
and all difficulties until they sink into pauperdom 
and death. These habitués will get bootleg liquor 
anyhow, if it can be got at all. 

But what about the first convictions of offenders 
—mostly young offenders—during the years of war- 
time restriction and National Prohibition? Do the 
court records show that they have increased or 
diminished? 

I am indebted to Karl G. Karsten, one of the 
best American statistical authorities, for suggesting 
a very simple test as to the effectiveness of Pro- 
hibition. In New York, which many account the 
wettest city in the United States, with a population 
greater than that of several states, computations, 
made for me, from data of the Fingerprint Bureau,* 

New York City Magistrates Court, show a steady 


*Tt is fortunate that the fingerprinting of all this class of 
offenders became the invariable practice in Greater New York, 
beginning with the year 1913; for it gives a consecu‘ive record 
through the three important periods of the licensed saloon, war- 
time restrictions of the sale of alcoholic beverages, and National 
Prohibition, as charted by Mr. Shirk. We have thus a record of 
first, second, and third convictions for drunkenness throughout 
these periods, which becomes increasingly valuable as the years 
progress. It is conceivable that this record might be affected by 
the inclusion, as “first convictions,’ during 1913 and immediately 
succeeding years, of offenders who had really been convicted for 
drunkenness prior to the inception of fingerprinting. That would 
add to the totals of first convictions during the first years, making 
the contrast too sharp with the lessening of first offenders under 
war-time restrictions and National Prohibition. But a series of 
technical statistical tests indicates that this influence (the listing 
under first convictions of some who had been convicted prior to 
1913) had substantially disappeared by 1916, 


22 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


and pronounced decrease of first offenders (as indi- 
cated by convictions for drunkenness for the first 
time), from 24 per 10,000 population for the year 
1914, to only 6 per 10,000 population for the year 
1925! 

They show that, for the year 1916, the number of 
first offenders per 10,000 population of New York 
City was 19. Then the war-time restrictions came. 
The number of first offenders fell to 14 per 10,000 
population in 1917; to 7 in 1918, and 6 in 1919. In 
1920, the first year of National Prohibition, the first 
offenders were 7 per 10,000 population; in 1921, 7; 
in 1922, 9; in 1923, 9; in 1924, 8, and in 1925, as 
already stated, they fell below 6 per 10,000 popula- 
tion (see Chart 1). 

The confirmed drinker is a focus of infection 
spreading the drink habit. Yet every repeater in 
the record of arrests for drunkenness is revealed 
during this period as a steadily weakening factor 
of such infection up to 1925, the last year avail- 
able. 

In 1916 the number of first offenders was 10,126 
in a population of 5,312,000; in 1925, the population 
had grown to 6,252,000; yet the number of first 
offenders fell to 3,517; while the total number of 
convictions in these two periods was 16,355 and 
6,816, respectively. 

Out of every 100 convictions for drunkenness in 
the year 1916, 62 were of first offenders and 38 of 
repeaters; but in 1925, out of 100 convictions, only 


2 


80. | 


otto tate® 


70. |: 


PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 








bh Ae te Sad, bax et LAr aD omy tons tt ea Del it pad pt pier fa ee CICELY Be See to B hd etd ot ing flr pt 
SLIT ISL ISLET TESS TEEPE LEE PLP ELE Ske set hE Po PA Pi 
ePIC EIA PI EE Soil te DP AA at 


*-.. 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 
Number of First Convictions 
12585 1135110126 7789 4076 38460 3854 4118 5276 6152 4687 36517 


Rate per 10,000 population 
and per cent of the 1916 Level (19.1) 
PTAC o 1 1A AY F245 1662.06.38 Tid VE8L98 8.8 7.67 15.6 
(128)(113)100 75 39 832 836 37 47 45 40 29 


i. DRUNEENNESS DIES DOWN AMONG FIRST 
OFFENDERS 
in New York City 


(First convictions for offense of intoxication per 10,000 population. 
thd Fingerprint Bureau, City Magistrates Court, New York 
ty. 


This chart shows that the spread of intemperate drinking is dying 
down among those who are not already addicted. Recruiting for 
the army of habitual drunkards is falling off and this is the great 
fact to be remembered about Prohibition. The addicts themselves 
are also dying out rapidly. 


24 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


51 were first offenders, while 49 were of recidivists, 
that is, repeaters. 


Even Repeaters Are Fewer 


The number of repeaters as shown by the number 
of convictions for drunkenness for the second time, 
fell from 2,290 in 1916 to 1,138 in 1925, while, in 
proportion to population, the fall was even greater. 

The number of third convictions is of less impor- 
tance, but also shows a decline during this period, as 
there were 1,139 convictions for drunkenness for the 
third time in 1916 and only 530 in 1925. © 

Will the eminent gentlemen of the Moderation 
League ponder these figures? Could a more typical, 
complete, and convincing single demonstration be 
nade of the rapidly weakening influence of the liquor 
traffic and the liquor habit upon the much-maligned 
flaming youth of this country, including our girls, 
than this record achieved in wet New York City? 
For there it was that the Old Guard of the liquor 
traffic succeeded in 1923 in hamstringing enforce- 
ment by the repeal of the Mullen-Gage law, sadly 
impairing any local codperation with the Prohibi- 
tion officers of the Federal Government. 

If, under the severe tests obtaining in New York 
City, we find no justification for the loud claim that 
drunkenness in general, youthful drunkenness, and 
female drunkenness are increasing; but, instead, 
find that first offenders or first convictions have 
dwindled to less than a third of the pre-prohibition 


NEW DRINKERS FALL OFF 25 


numbers, and even convictions of old offenders di- 
minished from 1916 to 1925, by more than one-half 
—the main contention of the Wets collapses at the 
start. 

The startling fact stands out, of primary impor- 
tance, that, even in New York City, Prohibition 
has succeeded in weakening, if not breaking, the 
chain of tradition by which the alcohol habit has, 
for ages, been handed down from each generation 
to the next. 


CHAPTER III 
SHIRK, STATISTICIAN 


A Chart Without a Base-line 


I have intimated that Mr. Shirk’s judgment and 
skill in presenting a statistical survey of the record 
of National Prohibition are faulty, and I have given 
a crucial case of the curbing of the liquor traffic 
and liquor habits in New York City during the 
periods of war-time restriction and National Pro- 
hibition. I have shown that the new recruits, of 
the rising generation, no longer swell the drink army. 
If the experience of that great city can be regarded 
as affording a cross-section of the good and bad of 
Prohibition enforcement in the nation, then Mr. 
Shirk’s figures and conclusions are very sadly at 
fault, and exaggerate his case exceedingly; for the 
conclusion he draws from his chart of arrests for 
drunkenness in 350 cities and towns of the United 
States is that 


“during the severe bone-dry years of the Vol- 
stead act, there was such an astonishing increase 
that drunkenness just about reached the level 
of the old saloon years by 1924” (1, p. 342). 


Mr. Shirk’s chart (Chart 2), is perhaps uninten- 
tionally deceptive because it lacks a base-line; thus 
26 


‘ . 
APRS SW Oe ee ofthe 


ACN ATIONALOR ELV EY OF Chan ore1ONy bolts 


~-CRUNKENNESS ON TSE UNITED STATES: 
ac 3 


ZHERESTS FOR ONTOR'Z ATION OR BHO PL es 


OO a wE— 


© Moderahous League (ined. lheorearatee si 


Aas 8 
Nes Sar 


time: ‘Pine restoration of tert cen. « 





2. MISLEADING DIAGRAM PRESENTED BY THE “WETS” 
Before the Senatorial Investigators at Washington 


(Reprinted from page 340 of “fhe National Prohibition Law,” report 
of hearing before the Sub-committee of the Committee on the Judi- 
Soak) United States Senate, 69th Congress, First Session, April 5-24, 
1926. 


The population of the United States keeps growing at the rate of about 
14% a year; each decade it increases almost 15%. For the urban 
population, because the cities are growing more rapidly, this increase 
is probably even greater, and any comparison of arrests for drunken- 
ness at the beginning and end of a decade is misleading which does 
not take into account this normal growth of population. The Modera- 
tion League has presented just such a misleading picture in the diagram 
reproduced above. It may be added that the chart is also misleading 
because the zero line has been omitted and the lower half of the 
chart is cut away, so as to give the impression that the low point in 
the curve is a much smaller quantity compared with the high points 
before and after than it really is. The third count against this 
exhibit is that it includes statistics for about fifty cities, which have 
not been authorized and in some cases have been definitely repudiated 
by the local police authorities, 


28 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


the curve for the period of war-time restrictions and 
for the first year of National Prohibition makes the | 
arrests seem to come down at first, to almost no 
arrests for drunkenness, whereas in actual fact these 
fell only somewhat below one-half. Thereafter, in 
the years 1921 to 1924, Mr. Shirk draws the line of 
arrests much higher than it should rise, because he 
fails wholly to allow for increase in population dur- 
ing this interval. 


No Allowance for Increased Toxicity 

Another factor might be emphasized as affecting 
his conclusion. ‘The intensely poisonous qualities 
of bootleg liquor, as attested at the Washington 
hearings by Assistant Secretary Andrews, in charge 
of Federal Prohibition enforcement, by Senator 
Reed of Missouri, and generally by the wet wit- 
nesses, must result in a greater number of cases 
of intoxication in proportion to the total number of 
drinkers than in the pre-prohibition period. I 
understand that the ratio of toxicity of bootleg 
liquors to that of medicinal liquors dispensed by 
government permit is being worked out by Professor 
A. O. Gettler of Bellevue Hospital, New York City, 
under the auspices of the Federal Prohibition 
authorities. Pending publication of this ratio, I am 
credibly informed that a very conservative reckoning 
would set the poisonous effects of bootleg beverages 
as compared with medicinal liquors at ten to one; 
that is, 1t requires only a tenth as much of bootleg 
liquor as of pre-prohibition liquor to produce a given 


SHIRK, STATISTICIAN 29 


degree of drunkenness. The reason, of course, is 
that bootleg liquor is so concentrated and almost 
invariably contains other and more deadly poisons 
than mere ethyl alcohol. It would seem to follow 
that the drinker of bootleg liquor, blissfuly unaware 
of its composition, drinks much more poison than he 
realizes. “Temperance” is all but impossible and 
drunkenness all but inevitable. If, say, out of a 
given number of drinkers twice as many now get 
drunk on bootleg liquor as used to on pre-prohibition 
liquor, we should expect twice as many arrests as 
formerly even if the number of drinkers were the 
same. Put in another way, even if the number of 
drinkers were reduced one half by Prohibition, the 
number of arrests for drunkenness would remain the 
same. 

The same tendency (for a greater number of 
arrests out of a given number of drinkers) is evi- 
dently brought about by the well known fact that 
Prohibition has been more effective in suppressing 
the drinking of beer than of whisky. Other things 
equal, more arrests must result from the stronger 
drinks. We know that in spite of this shift, rela- 
tively, from beer to “whisky,” and in spite of the 
increased toxicity of the “whisky,” there has been a 
great reduction in the number of arrests for drunk- 
enness. It follows, therefore, since the arrests to- 
day represent a larger fraction of the drinkers, that 
there has been a still greater reduction in drinking. 

Manifestly, then, Mr. Shirk’s conclusions as to the 
actual number of drinkers per arrest for drunken- 


30 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


ness must be radically altered by this factor of ten- 
fold toxicity. 


His Original Data Untrustworthy 

Finally, I have special evidence as regards the 
accuracy of Mr. Shirk’s original data. Aside from 
the figures of 300 cities and towns which he accepts 
from the World League Against Alcoholism, he has 
gathered independently records of arrests in 157 
more cities, some 50 of which are mingled with the 
original 300 in this chart, and all of them in sub- 
sidiary charts. When I caused inquiries to be sent 
to the police departments of these 157 extra cities 
and towns as to the accuracy of Mr. Shirk’s figures, 
in a large percentage of cases the police heads 
declared them to be inaccurate and unverifiable. 
Specimen testimony to this effect is reproduced in 
facsimile, in Exhibit I. 

Ordinarily a conscientious statistician would reject 
figures the accuracy of which is largely questioned 
at their sources. But for the sake of argument, I 
shall next present the record as the Wets see it 
at its worst. I shall take the statistics prepared, 
or sponsored, by the eminent gentlemen of the 
Moderation League, and show what becomes of 
them when correctly set forth. 


No Allowance Even for Increased Population 
Passing over the omission of a base-line and 
the factor of increased toxicity, and passing over 


‘IMOYS O10 SOFMBYO Of} OPEUI SAVY SJOIO 9dI10d oT, ‘WONMVOYIIOA Joy JSonbal B YAK SJoryo sdtfod oy} 
0} JU0S T9Y} VIOM SUIIOJ OUT, ‘“SMIIOJ Av[NSe1 UOdN SuljJAMpuvy Ul potojus dle SoInsy YIIYS ey ‘ssouusayuNap 
AO} §$}8011B JO saIn3y HIyY_ og} Jo Aovinoowe oy} SulUssou0I SopAinbuy 0} Sjoryo sojjod mous Seljder AUB Jo OAL, 


I LISIOXS 


POTYEBMT YOY Lraam ; 
Fost ANT. pos rr 


*OWOTIPIOTA STJswrL *uoTs 07x04 OE ‘Geervy ty *SUOTAPTOTA OFIZVIS PuoTEBOTTOzuy *gosnea Ilv 
'mu0d re ONL Ad gavn eismae Ey i 


tgouog HOITOL SAL Aa COMM Sismmy: 
j 7 Ay W. aie pager bai o3939 
’ 
4, 





32 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


the fact that the data are, in many cases, unveri- © 
fiable and repudiated at the source, I believe the 
gentlemen of the Moderation League cannot object 
to my subjecting Mr. Shirk’s crude figures to one 
simple, ordinary statistical rule of correction; 
namely, that for increase of population during the 
period of years they cover. Chart 3 shows arrests 
for drunkenness, according to Mr. Shirk’s figures, 
after making correction for this single factor. It 
will be seen that it changes immediately the curve 
of arrests from 1914 to 1924, inclusive, showing a 
net decrease per 100,000 of population. 


No Allowance for Stricter Enforcement 


The next correction is one which I will not insist 
on, although it is based on an estimate* of a known 
increased severity of arrests for drunkenness dur- 
ing the periods of war-time restrictions and National 
Prohibition and, without such a correction, Mr. 
Shirk’s figures are of little statistical worth. The 
question as to whether the police are now more 
thorough in their task of arresting drunken persons 
under Prohibition than in the free-and-easy times of 

* Robert E. Corradini estimates the percentage of arrests for 
drunkenness, as attested by police heads, at 40 per cent in pre- 
prohibition years, and 90 per cent during the latest years of 
National Prohibition. As Mr. Corradini’s statistics of drunken- 
ness arrests, gathered from the police departments of 626 Amer- 
ican cities and towns, are generally regarded as standard, I have 


adopted this estimate, provisionally, in correcting the totals of 
arrests in Mr. Shirk’s tables. 


100. 






90- 


80. 


70- 


60- 


50- 


40. 


30- 


20- 


PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 


10- 





1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 19. 
Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
607 607 6539 521 406 298 226 3807 413 484 499 


Arrests per 1000 population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (19.0) 
LOLOL. OTL G.e (hoe Ose) I eekit oan 42.81 U4 SIA 
100 97 103 96 73 52 37 49 65 75 "4 
rer ree err a aD 


3. ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS ARE MUCH 
BELOW OLD LEVEL 
in 349 cities selected by the Moderation League 


(Total number of arrests in 349 cities selected by the Modera- 
tion League based upon reports from police departments in 
about 300 cities and reports collected by the Moderation 
League in about 50 cities. The statistics of the number of 
arrests are Shirk’s and cover 350 cities including Chicago, 
where disorderly conduct is not separated from drunkenness. 
The figures of arrests per 1000 population and the chart 
have been corrected to exclude Chicago.) 


Per capita drunkenness is falling off at a rate which is only 
hinted at by this chart, which compares only arrests before 
the war (when perhaps two out of five persons were 
arrested) with conditions at present (when nine out of ten 
are being arrested.) Yet even in this obviously unfair com- 
parison it is clear that Prohibition has reduced the number 
of drunken persons arrested upon our streets by one out 
of every four that used to be arrested. Previous charts 
have already shown that a growing proportion of these 
arrests are for ‘‘repeaters’—habitual drunkards—and that 
the new recruits to this class of offenders are rapidly dis- 
appearing, 


34 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


the licensed saloon, seems never to have occurred 
to Mr. Shirk. 

In Exhibit II appear fac-similes of the signed 
statements of police heads of various cities, testi- 
fying to the increased severity of arrests for drunk- 
enness during the Prohibition period. 

Chart 4 has been prepared to give the most prob- 
able picture of the statistics of arrests for drunken- 
ness in their relation to the changed habits of the 
American people, as based on the figures of Mr. 
Shirk’s report for 350 cities and corrected for the 
factors of increased population, and increased police 
severity in making arrests. 


Shirk on Indiana 


Next let us scrutinize some of Mr. Shirk’s special 
favorites among his statistics. In the report of the 
survey which he conducted for the eminent gentle- 
men of the Moderation League this passage occurs: 


Indiana is a sample of one of these re- 
strictive states. Until 1918 the state was partly 
under license and partly under local option. In 
April, 1918, there became effective a statewide 
semi-prohibition law under which it was lawful 
to make wine and cider and to bring liquor into 
the state for personal use. Conditions were 
comparatively good. Drunkenness was prac- 
tically stationary in 1914 and 1915, increased 
with the war boom in 1916, and then dropped 
sharply with the war-time restrictions. But 
under the drastic Volstead act drunkenness in- 


iy yyy yyy 


PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 





1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 
Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
507 607 5389 6521 406 298 226 3807 413 484 499 


Arrests per 1000 population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (19.0) 
DSC ASO L008 18.0) 1 O00 9.0) else) Oo. ont Locos a 4.0) 04.2: 
OO Coe k0o gn on tony Da are S00 GS 75 Tee 


Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
Havoc wos Pebas (ba TOS OS 6479790 90 
Probable total cases of Intoxication 
(per 1000 population) 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level ee ade 
Pomeauwe ota OD 8 260 18138 Se eb 16 O16 
i00 98 103 97 73 52 837 41 44 48 ae 


4. DRUNKENNESS LESS ar ae ONE HALF OF 
WHAT IT WA 
in 349 cities selected by the Moderation League 


(Arrests for intoxication in 349 cities selected by the Modera- 
tion League, as reported by the police departments in about 
300 cities and by the Moderation League in the remaining 
cities. Also probable number of cases of intoxication in 
these cities, as computed from Robert A. Corradini’s esti- 
mates of the percentage arrested of all cases of intoxication. 
For the previously “wet” states this is 40% in 1920 and 
previously, 55% in 1921, 75% in 1922, and 90% in 1923 
and thereafter; for the previously “dry” states it is 90% 
throughout. The percentage here used is a composite series 
proportionately adjusted to the wet and dry cities in the 
group.) 

The number of arrests for drunkenness has little signifi- 
cance except as it throws light on the actual extent of 
drunkenness, that is, the total number of cases of intoxi- 
cation. When the change in the_ percentage actually 
arrested before and after Prohibition is taken into account, 
the marked improvement after Prohibition is clear. 


Tae 
phe ye 


fie 
OOH 


pple wt pt A aE eaa! £ 
t& ao isa anes 


“WA ‘DENGNOSIMUYH AC ALID 
LNSBWL2HNVd3Sa 35170d 





kon, JT exunsp yng LRomsARDg soaie 4rz 0 03 tere 238 8 aaa 40 on 
NOO S4uem{tude, EOF [Or eye ACTITQHNOTT 03 TOT. 
vt I zz Sy 4 ive 0 
eguz aiet se TZ TUIA SMOSTSTD SHY CT HOTIT zodoad ay execs 
= e 


9 
ee poahe a h “aotaernotee 
Zee T Ue ony 4¥ Lop B Tarp ost 3a8 6M BKOOTES OST : 
"oa 
Dey em [I6t FF BIST "Putas OOT V¥R OM ETST 09 sOTIZ 


ce thes eel tay0 peas tfec #3939 


‘smos19d weyUNIp prvMo. dsaTTod 
6q} Jo Adyjod pesueqd 04} 0} BUTAJI}ISO} SOTZID SNOIIBA Ul ad1]0d Jo SjorqO WOdJ 819}}9] [BoTdA} ANOJ Jo uoPJONpordel 9 


IX LIMIBSS 








Pa Lee T7 OF Sry ane ag neseshfaxt Se 


ow 2 SF py toy 809g 0H" aa UW 


Lore vr si € segert) 77 F21 SLE etvt 


AER 


SHIRK, STATISTICIAN 37 


creased by 1924 far above anything ever known 
in Indiana before (1, p. 348). 

Mr. Shirk’s spurious curve of increased drunken- 
ness arrests for Indiana is reproduced in Chart 5. 
The upward trend of the curve for the National Pro- 
hibition period is by no means wholly due to Mr. 
Shirk’s habit of failing to apply the factors of cor- 
rection for population and police severity of Prohibi- 
tion arrests. Omitting the figures for arrests in In- 
dianapolis, Chart 6, which shows totals of arrests 
for drunkenness for the whole state of Indiana out- 
side that city, entirely reverses Mr. Shirk’s picture. 


Shirk on Chicago 


Mr. Shirk’s figures of arrests for drunkenness in 
Chicago also were scouted by Mayor Dever of that 
city (1, p. 1380), as only indicating, according to the 
mayor’s testimony, “how worthless such figures are. 
There are no such records as arrests for drunkenness 
in Chicago,’ he went on to say. “And disorderly 
conduct is a dragnet for almost everything—neigh- 
borhood brawls, quarrels, and even traffic law viola- 
tions, as well as larceny, assaults, and everything 
along that line is termed disorderly conduct and 
punishable as such. We have no records of drunk- 
enness at all.” Yet Mr. Shirk’s total of 86,000 arrests 
for disorderly conduct in Chicago in 1924, although 
tagged by himself “disorderly conduct,” are never- 
theless entered as drunkenness arrests in his aggre- 
- gate totals, on which his chart is based! 


Endiana is 8 sample of one of ah -e 

i fntil 1918 the: State 

p: urtly under license and partly an er 
alo ition, In April, nite ee he 


ornativalive sti nary: in 1914: eee “1915 

e reased. ‘with the war. boom in 1916; and: | 
d-sharply: with thewar-time —} 
But under od 





5. ANOTHER MISLEADING DIAGRAM PUBLISHED BY 
THE MODERATION LEAGUE 


(Chart, and comment thereon, submitted to the Senatorial Investigating 
Committee by Stanley Shirk and published in “The National Prohibi- 
tion Law,” page 343, Hearings before the Sub-committee of the Com- 
mittee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-ninth Congress, 
First Session, April 5-24, 1926.) 


This chart is deceptive and misleading in the same way as the other 
chart shown by Mr. Shirk. The data for the chart include the city 
of Indianapolis, and for this city Mr. Shirk’s figures allege that 
arrests for intoxication are nearly five times as great as they were 
before Prohibition. These amazing figures which would seem to mark 
out Indianapolis as a city without parallel in the United States, 
appear to have no official support whatever, the police department of 
that city claiming that no figures are available. Moreover, the author 
of this chart has failed to convert his data to a per capita basis, in 
order to allow for normal population growth. lLastly, the chart fails 
to show the zero line; by omitting more than half of the lower part 
of the chart, an exaggerated impression of the relatively slight changes 
which have taken place is given. The accompanying text is exhibited 
here also in order to show the misleading comment and the interpreta- 
tion which was made of this chart. Ben if Mr. Shirk’s figures were 
correct, and correctly presented, they certainly could not be considered 
a fair “sample” of “restrictive states” or anything else. They are 
freak figures and how Mr, Shirk came by them is 2 mystery, 


190. 






a 


GAIN SINCE PROHIBITION 


= 


1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 920 1921 1922 1923 1924 
Arrests in thousands 
Bi4g 4 Ont eG. 4 4a Ome Om 2. 41a 4. eG, 4.4. 


Arrests per 1000 population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (17.1) 
Gta oo LO Om Leb 950m bot. 0l 9 6.0m 11 466 42 
—96_ 93 111 103_53_ 30_29 35 _64 85 _83_ 


Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
LOR eO a0 a4 Ob OV GO eiTO> VS Ose 90 900 9.0 


Probable total cases of Intoxication 
(per 1000 population) 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (42.6) 
£10040.) 48 44). °18 8 7 8 LoL GUS LG 
SG6Ne0G ne L117 1039) 42)° 20) 1718) 29) 238" .S7 


6 DRUNKENNESS PROBABLY RECEDES IN 
INDIANA 


omitting Indianapolis, for which figures are unavailable 


(Arrests for intoxication in 12 cities having an aggregate 
population of 402,000 in 1920, as reported by police depart- 
ments in 8 cities and compiled by the Moderation League 
in 4 more. Also, the probable total cases of intoxication 
in these citics.) 


Correcting Mr. Shirk’s figures for Indiana by omitting 
Indianapolis, we find that the state has followed the usual 
course after Prohibition, at first with a great reduction in 
the number of arrests; then, as police activity becomes more 
drastic, an increase in the rate of arrests per capita, 
approaching but not reaching the Pre-prohibition Level, with 
a peak in 1923 and a renewed decline thereafter. Applying 
very moderate estimates of the percentage arrested shows 
us that the probable total cases of intoxication in this state 
is doubtless no greater than in neighboring states, and 
probably amounts to no more than 40 per cent. 


40 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


The conclusion is forced upon us that Mr. Shirk’s 
statistics are unreliable as well as wrongly treated 
and interpreted. 


His Main Chart, Corrected 


As his main exhibit consists of the statistics of 
arrests for drunkenness in 350 cities, I will close this 
criticism by referring to Chart 3 for those 350 cities, 
and emphasize its teachings. 

Chart 3 tells us that, without taking into account. 
any correction except that for increase of popula- 
tion between 1914 and 1924, inclusive, we have the 
following striking results: 

With the population of the 349 cities (excluding 
Chicago) increasing from 24,000,000 in 1914 to 
29,000,000 in 1924, on this reckonmg there were 
189 arrests per 10,000 of population for drunken- 
ness in 1914 in these 349 places; 185 arrests in 1915; 
195 in 1916; 183 in 1917; 138 under war-time restric- 
tions in 1918; 98 in 1919, during half of which War- 
time Prohibition prevailed; 71 in 1920, and 141 in 
1924.* 

If the ratio of arrests for drunkenness during 1916, 
the last year of the saloon era, had prevailed dur- 

* Dr. Clarence True Wilson, General Secretary of the Board of 
Temperance, Prohibition and Public Morals of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, has anticipated me in presenting a similar 
correction of a smaller group comprising the principal American 
cities, which had been offered as a damning array by Senator 


Bruce of Maryland before the Senate Sub-committee (1, p. 
1151-2). 


SHIRK, STATISTICIAN 41 


ing the period of the Volstead Act, according to this 
single correction for population instead of the total 
of 1,928,081 arrests given in Mr. Shirk’s table, there 
would have been 2,730,000 arrests, or 801,019 more 
arrests than the total claimed by Mr. Shirk. 

With this single correction of its main exhibit, 
overlooking stricter enforcement, I believe the mem- 
bers of the executive committee of the Moderation 
League would hardly have authorized Mr. Shirk 
to spread it upon the records of the United States 
Senate as evidence against the effectiveness of the 
Volstead Act during the first years of its application. 


_ Corradini’s Figures 

Leaving Mr. Shirk entirely, and substituting for 
his statistics those of Mr. Corradini, a careful statis- 
tician, I present Chart 7. 

Chart 7 gives a truer picture of arrests for drunk- 
enness in the United States during the period cov- 
ered by Mr. Shirk’s chart of 350 cities; for Chart 7 
uses the verified totals of arrests for drunkenness in 
626 cities gathered by Mr. Corradini for the World 
League Against Alcoholism. Within the dotted line 
of this chart is the estimate of drunkenness in these 
cities corrected for increased police severity in 
arrests. 

What is not debatable is: 

1. That there has been a very substantial reduc- 
tion in arrests for drunkenness and 

2. A still greater reduction in drinking. 


42 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


How Much Alcohol Is Really Consumed? 


Mr. Emory R. Buckner, United States District 
Attorney in New York, presented estimates to the 
Sub-committee Hearings in Washington, purport- 
ing to show that the illegal diversion of industrial 
alcohol probably reached 60,000,000 gallons a year. 

This was unexpected and of course was good 
“news” for the press! 

Dr. J. M. Doren, chief chemist of the Bureau of 
Internal Revenue and in charge of the department 
dealing with this phase of the situation, presented a 
most excellent and elaborate analysis of Buckner’s 
erroneous reasoning and also a study showing the 
diversion of industrial alcohol for beverage pur- 
poses to be between ten and fifteen million gallons 
a year and probably between thirteen and fourteen 
million (1, p. 1313), or only eight to nine per cent 
of the pre-war consumption of beverage alcohol. 

It must also be remembered that not all of the 
alcohol diverted is consumed. Between one and two 
million gallons have been recaptured and confis- 
cated (5). Leakage, breakage, and evapora- 
tion will account for almost as much more. The 
result is that probably illegal consumption of alco- 
hol from diverted industrial alcohol is less than eight 
per cent of pre-prohibition legal consumption, and 
therefore still less than eight per cent of the total 
pre-prohibition consumption (legal and illegal). 

To this must, of course, be added the alcohol 
smuggled into the country and distilled or brewed 








: Wy Ly 


GAIN SINCE PROHIBITIO 


. 


4 
yO i 
* 


Porcent 
$ 


(20 


OOOO) 


(t0- SESE SFIS NATION, : 


10 “1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1916 1919 1920 1923 1922 1923 1924- 


Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
$14 851 886 441 445 453 614 532 382 290 194 267 362 429 432 
Arrests per 1000 population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition th (17.8) 


15.8 16.8 17.9 18.9 18.3 17.9 19.1 18.4 13.4 9.9 , SS 2S11.71 15.0. 40.0 
_89_ 94 101 106_103 101_107 103_75_ 56_87_ 49_60, 77__76 


Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
Beha 6 sero 2b3 6 63) 0S) 63.6) 53/53) 53> 264" 79 90 90 


Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 

and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (33.6) 
SOU ena n Gin Sé. 4) S400 86036 0 25.)19 9) 221456 16) 16 15 
89 94 101 106 103 101 107 103 75 56 37 41 44 45 45 


Deena ce aL 


7. ENTIRE COUNTRY SHOWS PROBABLE REDUCTION OF 
DERUNEKENNESS 
in records of 626 Cities 


(The aggregate number of arrests for intoxication in all cities for which statis- 
tics authenticated by the local police department are available. For 1924, these 
comprise 626 cities with a total population of 32,000,000 persons scattered over 
44 states; in 1910, they comprise 514 cities with a total population of 19,800,000 
persons scattered over 40 states. The broken line on the chart shows index 
numbers of the per capita rate of these arrests. While the 350 cities of the 
previous chart were largely in formerly “wet” territory, about one quarter of 
the population of these 626 cities comprises formerly “dry’’ population and the 
figures of percentage of persons arrested are accordingly modified. The full line 
shows the probable total cases of intoxication.) 


Far more reliable evidence of the results of Prohibition is to be found in the 
statistics for 626 cities than in the figures for 350 cities, particularly as all of 
the data for these 626 cities are based upon actual police reports. The above 
chart therefore shows the grand total statistics for more than one quarter of 
the Ned alee Se of the United States, including more than one half of the urbam 
population. 


44 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


at home. How much these amount to no one knows 
absolutely; but all experts agree that, all put 
together, they constitute a minor part of illegal 
liquor, far less than that from diversion of industrial 
alcohol, that is, far less than eight per cent of pre- 
prohibition consumption. 

From all this it is evident that the total consump- 
tion of alcohol today in beverage form is less than 
16 per cent of pre-prohibition consumption and 
probably less than 10 per cent. 

An entirely independent estimate has been made 
by Corradini. This is based on the assumption that 
the samples seized by the Treasury Department 
represent a true cross-section of the liquor on the 
market, of which the legal portion is known. 

This calculation has not yet been published; but 
- all experts who have seen it can find no serious flaw 
in it, except the possibility that the samples seized 
are not representative. Corradini’s result indicates 
_ that the total consumption is less than three per cent 
of pre-prohibition consumption! Corradini’s esti- 
mates are shown in Chart (69). 

It seems safe to conclude that the total consump- 
tion to-day is certainly less than 16 per cent of pre- 
prohibition consumption, probably less than 10 per 
cent, and possibly less than five per cent. 






d 90. |: z GAINSINCE PROHIBITION 
: Uf 

Q 70-[:: pees RRR NOOR Yi 

f F 

c OF 4 

SG 40-f: 

ul 

Boo} a 
ao} cl wae ee // 


it As PO Sih t re ear rtn Ol pita) 
steletete Ree eo 


oc 5 tet : “ne est ttesteleatentestateatastestot tate ttt: Me 
QS10 41911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 
Estimated Aggregate Consumption of Absolute Alcohol (millions of gallons) 
Logs 2O2) 160) 168.166 152)154 170.118 °85. 041) 119.8) 7:5). 7.2) 4.4573.9 
Estimated Per Capita Consumption (in gallons) 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (4.72) 
4.74 4.92 4.79 4.97 4.86 4.38 4.38 4.78 3.27 2.33 1.11 .516 .198 .185 .113 .099 


100 104 101 105 103 93 93 101 69 49 24 11 42 39 24 2.1 


8 BEVERAGE ALCOHOL REDUCED BY MORE THAN NINE TENTHS 
(Corradini’s Estimate for U. S.) 


(Computed by R. A. Corradini from data in Federal Reports) 


A shrewd estimate of the consumption of absolute alcohol in beverage form by the 
American public has been made by Robert A. Corradini from data of the Federal 
Government, showing (1) the distribution of liquor for industrial purposes from the 
licensed distilleries, and (2) the percentage this alcohol comprises of all alcoholic 
beverages seized by the Prohibition and revenue agents. From these two sources it 
is, of course, possible to estimate the total volume of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Cor- 
radini has checked this estimate by an entirely independent computation in which the 
various amounts of liquor smuggled over the borders from different countries and the 
probable quantities produced illegally in this country, or manufactured legally and 
illegally diverted, have all been estimated. This computation closely checks the 
figures shown in the chart above. It would seem clear from the data shown in the 
text that the present consumption of absolute alcohol must be less than 16 per cent 
of the pre-war quantities, that it is probably less than 10 per cent, and is perhaps 
less than 5 per cent, as Mr. Corradini estimates it above, 


. 


CHAPTER IV 
FurtTHER Errors oF Mr. SHIRK 


His “Dry” State Figures 

The inaccuracy of the main exhibits against Pro- 
hibition offered by Mr. Shirk in behalf of the gen- 
tlemen of the Moderation League, his failure to ap- 
ply the ordinary statistical correctors to his crude 
figures for arrests for drunkenness in 350 American 
cities and towns, and my acceptance of these tables 
for the sake of argument, with all their inaccuracies 
—but subjected, in the end, to merely a single obvi- 
ous corrector, namely, that for increased population 
during the period considered—furnished, in the last 
chapter, Instances of exaggeration by the Modera- 
tion League as to the non-enforcement of Prohibi- 
tion in the country as a whole. 

In fact, Mr. Shirk’s own inferences from the rec- 
ord of arrests were shown actually to reverse his 
case and to record a measure of enforcement that 
should be heartening to these eminent gentlemen 
who are devoted to “the restoration of temperance.” 
Further, as was to be expected, this demonstration 
harmonizes with the findings of the first chapter, 
as to the exemplary reduction of convictions for 

46 


FURTHER ERRORS OF MR. SHIRK 47 


drunkenness of first offenders in New York City, 
during the period of war-time restrictions and Na- 
tional Prohibition. 

But among Mr. Shirk’s minor exhibits is a table 
which prompts him to say: 


One of the interesting things disclosed by the 
survey is that, while conditions in former “wet” 
states are now about the same as in 1914, in 
former ‘‘dry” states—+.e., states which had some 
form of state Prohibition or semi-Prohibition 
law before the Eighteenth Amendment was 
adopted—conditions are worse to-day under 
the bone-dry Volstead Act than they formerly 
were under their own state dry laws (1, p. 342). 


Indiana is represented as one of these dry states, 
and we have seen how the figures for arrests for 
drunkenness in Indiana were distorted in the survey 
of the Moderation League. Abandoning, therefore, 
the untrustworthy tables of Mr. Shirk and relying 
on the standard tables compiled by Mr. Corradini, I 
have prepared Charts 9 and 10, the former showing 
that, after National Prohibition, there has actually 
been a lowered rate of arrests for drunkenness in this 


group. 


State Prohibition Reduced Arrests 


But because this is obviously not the proper way 
to compare the results of Prohibition in these states, 
which were dry before the National Prohibition 
_ period, I have also shown in Chart 11, a compari- 







at]. eo. — 8 
ee es ee 


-PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
a 
? 


OF; 
& 
aS 


FER CE 





y 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 


Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
57.9 61.2 70.8 71.2 68.0 75.6 81.4 78.0 54.9 42.0 41.0 55.9 64.6 73.4 75.2 


Arrests per 1000 population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibkition Level (19.0) 
17.9 18:1 20,1°19.5 17.9, 19.2° 20.0 18.6.12.6: 9.4 °'8.9 11.8 13 271462 te 
—94_ 96_106 103_94 101 106 98 66 49_47 62 70 77 __76 


Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
90,90 «90° 90 *90.° 90% 90'°.90." 90° 790 (90-90-4907 sGom oe 


Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 

and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (21.1) 
20. 202208 2205" ORV 21 O22 27 ea Oe TO 2 aie a ee 
94 96 106 103 94 101 106 98 66 49 47 €2 70 77 #=*''6 


9. MAREED IMPROVEMENT ete NATIONAL PEROHIBITION 


VEN 
in states formerly dry 


(Arrests for drunkenness in 67 cities with total population in 1920 of 4,616,000, 
in 24 Dry States where statistics are available, from 1910 to date, as reported 


eV ne departments. Full line shows probable number of cases of intoxi- 
cation. 


Since Prohibition came to the Dry States at various dates, we cannot so easily 
apply a correcting factor for police stringency, nor estimate the total number of 
drunken persons from the data of arrests. But even assuming that the same 
stringency prevailed in these states before 1920 as after, the record of National 
Prohibition shows improvement, 


Percent 





ok ‘ 5 eaea sto Catocieenes be been Orr's ae beater preiaartd pare ee 
1910 L911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 
Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
228 238 244 260 256 #246 268 266 203 154 95 186 188 218 226 


Arrests per 1000 population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (19.6) 
Sead bse A Gy os bDs8 1.0 160014 5.0111.4 8.80 6.8 7,0) 10259107 12:0 
—98_ 100_100 104 101 96 _102 100_73_ 56_34 48 66 75 __77_ 
Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
Seep AO rA0 400) 40 40040 94051400) 4077-56 78). 90). 90 


Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 

and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (39.1) 
Pence eee ST AON SO 28M 22 eB 14) bah TB TE 
96 100 100 104 101 96 102 100 73 56 34 35 35 33 £434 


10. PROBABLY TWO THIRDS OF THE DRUNEKENNESS HAS BEEN 
ELIMINATED 
in the “wet” states 


(Arrests for Drunkenness in 436 cities [with total population in 1920 of 
17,810,000] in 14 states, as reported by police departments. Also probable total 
cases of intoxication.) 


That the former wet states are three times as sober as they were is one of the 
most significant facts about Prohibition. The importance of the wet states group 
is that in them we have a clean-cut picture of the effects of National Prohibition, 
whereas in the total U. S. the influence of states already dry before 1920 
operates to blur this picture. The number (per capita) of arrests has been 
reduced by about one quarter and this in itself is a substantial benefit, but it 
must be remembered that police severity is much greater than it was, so that 
where formerly only a small part of the arrestable drunken persons were actu- 
ally arrested (the others being helped home), the police now have to arrest 
nearly everyone who is intoxicated, partly on account of public opinion and 
partly to prevent deaths from bootleg poison. Of this change in police policies 
there is widespread evidence but the exact percentages arrested now and formerly 
are of course unknown. It would seem to be a very cautious estimate to say 
that probably more than 90 per cent are arrested to-day and less than two out 
of every five were formerly arrested. From these figures we see that the total 
drunkenness (whether of those arrested or escaping arrest) is probably only 
one third of what it used to be. If less conservative percentages were to be 
used, the fraction would of course be still smaller! 


Percent 
wn 
=) 





CO PT VE ot We PPR TCL eH IP RT erg Set hha ME YD Nt Be BE a St ate ET a ae are et Oar ea ee Gh oe Sat fet 





Years before and after State Prohibition 
—5 —4 —3s —2 —1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 


Arrests per 1000 population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (18.4) 
17.2 19.0 19.4 18.6°18.2, 16.2. 14.0,10.6 9.2./9.8° 11.3 14:1 15:0 16-3 °16.6yi2-4 
—93_ 103_105 100_99_ 88 _76_ 57_50_ 53_62 76_81_ 83_90 70__ 


Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxication 
40, -40.4°40:..-40 640) (40', 50) - 60). 70° 1780 2690) 5909902 900s S0meeao 


Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (46.0) 
AS) 474148 465 (465) 406°) 28) TS 1800 195 FB Sted oe te ee 
937103, 105' 100°. 99. S861 87 28) B87 a7 29. SG mi Si mee eek 


ll. AFTER STATE PROHIBITION, PROBABLY THREE QUARTERS OF 
DRUNKENNESS DISAPPEARED 
in the states formerly dry 


(Arrests for intoxication in 56 cities having a population in 1920 of 4,198,000, in 19 
States. which had State Prohibition before 1920, as reported by police departments. — 
Full line shows the probable total cases of intoxication.) | 


No clear picture is afforded of what happened in the dry states unless all statistics 
for these states are brought together, relative to the dates when each went dry by 
adopting State Prohibition. _This chart gives the story of the results of State Pro-- 
hibition wherever it was tried more significantly than the previous chart comparing — 
the states before and after the coming of National Prohibition. After National Pro- 
hibition not much improvement is shown since they were already dry before National — 
Prohibition. It is interesting to note that these states reached a peak in the seventh, — 
eight and ninth years after going dry, and in the tenth year begin to show further 
peduction of drunkenness, 


& 
: 
! 
¢ 


FURTHER ERRORS OF MR. SHIRK 51 


son of arrests.for drunkenness during the first five 
dry years in all states having statewide Prohibition 
from the time the Prohibition law of each became 
effective, with the arrests for drunkenness during 
the last five wet years in those states. In this way 
only can the effects of Prohibition in this group of 
states be clearly set forth. 

Allowing merely for increase of population, Chart | 
10 shows a falling curve of arrests for drunkenness 
during the five-year dry period. 


Improvement in Wet States Clean Cut 

In Chart 10 the improvement in drunkenness 
arrests, per 100,000 population, is clearly observable 
for the wet group of states before and after Prohibi- 
tion. 

This is a clean-cut picture of the results of Na- 
tional Prohibition in that group of states which were 
wet until the Eighteenth Amendment became effec- 
tive. As compared with this chart, all nationwide 
charts that include wet and dry states together give 
pictures that are indistinct and blurred. But this 
chart tests Prohibition where it was new. This 
chart also follows the standard procedure of correc- 
tion for increased severity of arrests during Pro- 
hibition. 


A Crucial Test, Connecticut 


But a severer test may be found in the case of the 
single state of Connecticut, which did not ratify the 


52 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


Kighteenth Amendment. The Volstead law has been 
administered in that state in the teeth of active 
opposition from the Press and from all agencies 
opposed to its enforcement. In what follows I am 
indebted to my colleague, Professor Henry W. 
Farnam (1, pp. 1032-1040) of Yale University, 
who compiled the data and presented it to the Sen- 
ate Judiciary Sub-committee at the hearings in 
Washington, April, 1926. 

Connecticut.is an industrial state, with an alien 
intermixture of people from countries where wine 
and beer are commonly drunk. This state has an 
ideal seacoast for smuggling. It is influenced by the 
wetness of metropolitan New York. During the 
entire period of National Prohibition the Press of 
this state has actively opposed the application of 
the Volstead act. Within its area obstacles to its 
enforcement are undoubtedly great for both Fed- 
eral and state enforcers. 

Professor Farnam finds, however, using figures 
furnished by the state authorities and police of 
Connecticut’s cities and towns, that the drunkard 
population in Connecticut jails was reduced by more 
than half by Prohibition, being, for instance, 6,754 
in 1916 and 3,909 in 1925; that the death rate of 
infants per 1,000 fell from 100 in 1916 to 68 in 1924 
and 73.6 in 1925; and that cases of alcoholic insanity 
admitted at the asylum at Middletown were 72 for 
the year ending June 30, 1915, and only 23 for the 
year ending June 30, 1922. In specific towns and 
cities the facts are as follows (1, p. 1040): 





RE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 


_ 


GAIN SINCE 
TO 


ROHIBITION 









wae 


RR PRO Ch A pe i ee “. 


Ochrars 


- 1910 1913 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 192) 1922 1923 1924 
Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
ct 4.8) 1216.0 096.8 6.8) .-8,.9.8.0 6.0 8.3.2.0 38.0 3.9 4.6 4.2 
Arrests per 1000 population, 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (15.3) 
13.4 13.3 13.8 15.8 14.9 14.5 21.7 19.1 14.0 7.5 6.7 6.5 3.3 9.6 8.6 


Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
BOS 4058040... 40) 540.5140 .40 4 40° 40) 40° BBO 75. 90. 90 
Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (38.4) 
Dee none eens 937860) h4 486 86 119.17 013 1 old 10 
88__ 87 _ ~90 103 97 95 142 125 91 49 44 31 29 28 25 
LS SSeS 





¥ 


12. THREE QUARTERS OF PRE-WAR DRUNKENNESS HAS 
PROBABLY DISAPPEARED 
in Connecticut 
(Number of arrests for intoxication in 7 cities, having a total population in 1920 
of 446,169 as reported by police departments. Full line shows probable total 
cases of intoxication.) 


Connecticut is an excellent example of prohibition at its worst, because in this 
state the sentiment against prohibition was so strong that the amendment was 
mever ratified by the state. Nevertheless it is clear that this state has 
benefited greatly by prohibition. The number of arrests for drunkenness has 
been cut almost in two, and the number of drunken persons is probably only one 
quarter of what it used to be prior to 1917, 











\ 
_ 






LLL, LLL A LLL A t Z LO 
Gj LLL EGS Ze AA 
ZA PROHIBITION Z 
LEILA 
LLL 7 


oe 






es 


SS ah 


Percent 
$ 


SAAR mae DALAL CT oN cies sopndpessebipeonsepate pci ea cosaciacacaaas anda snepetaapepatacaaiad 

‘1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1937 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 -1923-—1924 
Number of Arrests (in thousands) 

AT AT 4 656 0 48 1 4G ST 222 ee es 


Arrests per 1000 population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (18.0) 
LS TSC OM Oo LS hod Cine a PS te gs 7 8 10) 4T 40 oe 
00. 83 11). T11.100:)\'94: 100° 89 72 S99 44 66 7a ea ee 


Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
40 94004 40), 1°40 (7/400 240 9'40)) 401-8 40) 940.0) 40 So 5G. Ceo eee 


Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 

and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (45.0) 
45. (88°60!) 560 (46.042. 45) 940) 1 88) DB 208 aS eee 
100 83 111 111 100 94 100 s9 782 39 44 Sd 42 42 42 


13. DRUNEENNESS PROBABLY LESS THAN HALF OF WHATIT WAS 
in Pennsylvania outside Philadelphia 


(Arrests reported by the Police Departments of 6 cities having a total popula- 
tion in 1920 of 800,000 inhabitants. The full line shows the probable total 
cases of intoxication.) 


The State of Pennsylvania has seen probably 58 per cent of the usual pre-war, 
Pre-prohibition drunkenness eliminated since 1918. The present level of drunken- 
ness in that state has been so consistently maintained as to suggest that the 
humber of new recruits to drinking is very slight. Arrests for drunkenness 
have risen under Prohibition until almost as many are arrested now as before, 
owing to the increased vigilance of the police with respect to intoxication. In 
this state two favorable circumstances are pictured, namely the low level of 
{runkenness and the increasing police activity. 





1910 1911 1912 1913 1923 1924 


Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
28.7 30.5 34.8 39.3 36.5 33.2 39.2 33.6 26.0 16.8 14.3 21.9 36.3 45.2 47.8 
Arrests per 1000 population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (20.7) 
TROP Le ela etl LO nto. ti oac9 LOO 4. 1 9a) ToD 21-8" -19.8°93;8 24.8 
—89_ 93 _104 116_92 95_110 93 71 45_38 57 93 115_120 
Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
Soe eee 20. 40 0400 40°40) 09 40" 40 400555 76 90 90 
Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (51.8) 
SOc ees 4) 349.0057. 48 8728) 20 226» 626. 88 
89 93 104 116 92 95 110 93 71 45 38 41 #50 #51 =#«53 


14. EVEN UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS DRUNKENNESS 
PROBABLY HAS DECREASED 
in Philadelphia 


(Total population in 1920 was 1,823,779. Computations made from data fur- 
nished py the police department. Full line shows probable total cases of intoxi- 
cation. 


Philadelphia shows so great an increase of arrests in the last few years 
that the rate of arrests per capita is actually higher than it was before Pro- 
hibition. This is the natural result of a marked increase in police vigilance with 
respect to drunkenness. The probable number of intoxications can be computed 
from this. If it be assumed that the increase in police vigilance has been no 
greater than elsewhere, then drunkenness would seem to be only about half of 
what it used to be; but if there be assumed a greater increase than usual in 
police vigilance, under General Butler, then the decline in drunkenness will be 
6een to be even more pronounced, 


jj 


Ss 
3 
Zz 
2 


Percent 
3 





o PPO yer eUr ei aa OP Or er PCCP UE ROR oer : iy ? i & saan ey ofes "oe. 

“$930 1913 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1923 38922 1923 1924 | 
Number of Arrests (in thousands) 

95.7 99.0 98.7 104.9 108.2 106.1 116.7 129.5 92.8 79.2 37.2 59.6 75.7 84.3 85.9 


Arrests per 1000 population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (29.6) 
28.4 28.9 28.4 29.8 30.4 29.4 31.8 34.8 24.6 20.8 9.6 15.2 19.1 21.1 21.4 
—96_ 98 _96_101_103, 99 _108 118 _83_ 70 _32_ 51_65| 71 __72. 


Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
40° 40. 1.400740 ‘'' 40) (40:53:40 5°40 °° 40) 9°40 24057 056-0975 7 eaten 


Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 

and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (74.0) 2 
TL TD ATL Ta C6 TA BOR ST G20 52 ek eee oa 
96 98.96 101 103 99 108 118 83 70 32 37 34 32 $32 


15. TWO THIRIS OF DRUNKENNESS HAS PROBABLY 
DISAPPEARED 
in Massachusetts 


(Arrests in 357 cities having a total population of 3,852,356 people in 1920, 
Full line shows probable number of cases of intoxication.) 


No state in the Union affords so complete a picture of the results of Prohibition, 
from the statistical point of view, as the formerly ‘‘wet’’ state of Massachusetts, 
for in this state alone reports of arrests for drunkenness can be had from the 
extraordinary total of 357 cities and towns, or from more towns and cities than 
in all the rest of the United States combined. It is in such large numbers 
of reports, each individually well authenticated, that safety lies for drawing 
conclusions, as the influence of special conditions in any one locality is less 
likely to distort the picture of so large a total. In this chart the contrast is 
striking between the very regular and consistently high level before Prohibition 
and the equally regular and consistently low level after Prohibition, 


O86G0000 
* 










Percent 
g 


Bert ee er 


ene enes terete eter eel 


Pa SESE rhe ee he at Pr FE erie Ped POP tt Oe ,, 
CHORUSES ORCA Or Pie 


10 ole . . AG 
1910 1833 912 1913 1918 1919 1920 1923 18922 1923 1924 


Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
47.7 46.4 49.8 55.0 59.2 57.8 65.1 73.4 54.9 35.5 21.8 31.0 37.6 39.6 39.5 


Arrests per 1000 population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (78.2) 
71.1 68.2 72.2 79.6 84.6 81.4 90.4100.6 75.3 47.9 29.1 40.8 48.8 51.4 50.6 
—9L_ 87 _92_ 102_108 104 _115 129 96 61 _37 52 62, 66_ 65 


Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 55 75 90 90 


Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (196.0) 
Lise etS eloon 21 Oe 204 226 m252 0188 20m 18s 4s ebb 1b7.2256 
91 87 92 102 108 104 115 129 96 61 37 838 33 29 29 





16. DRUNKENNESS DROPS FROM LARGE AND INCREASING 
FIGURES TO SMALL, ee ee PROPORTIONS 
in oston 


(Total population in 1920 was 748,060. Computations made from data furnished 
by the police department. Full line shows probable total cases of intoxication.) 


Boston is typical of many large cities in which the trend of drunkenness was 
rising rapidly before Prohibition, only to drop to very small proportions as 
s00n as Prohibition came, and continuing to diminish thereafter. 


Pheer ar ng er See ROR BO MMe et ha er (Y 


ORO ee) . 
eetyte ' . ecerels ere) ee 8 wy ‘ 
COR PG EEO tae PLM RCN Lid CN Reh Mon re 


{ settee nies 1 wae wa Gh OS 
W9ll 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 921 {922 1923 1924. 


Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
3.8 4,9 5.7 5.7 8.9 9.8 9.4 9.7 6.9 6.7 p 86 ae 5.4 6.4 8.1 9.0 


Arrests per 1000 population 
- and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (18.7) 
11.5 14.4 16.3 15.8 24.0 25.1 23.5 28.6 16.4 15.6 7.0 11.7 18.6 16.9 18.4 
62_ 77 _87_ 85 _128 134 126 126 88 83 _37 63 73 90__98. 


Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
405° 400/-40'0°405" 40:61'40 140540 9940" 40 80405 oe oe o 


Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 

and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (46.7) 
29.) 869 148 405,60 9 6S 78926 BOAT 239 eS ee 
62 77 87 $85 128 134 126 126 88 83 37 45 39 40 44 


17. DRUNEENNESS PROBABLY BUT HALF OF WHAT IT WAS 
in Washington, D. C. 


(Total population in 1920 was 437,571. Computations made from data furnished 
by the police department. Full line shows probable total cases of intoxication.) 


The experience of the nation’s capital is typical of many cities, where arrests 
for drunkenness had been rapidly rising, showing a steady increase in the 
amount of drunkenness, prior to the Prohibition Amendment. Since Prohibi- 
tion, the number of arrests has not been as great, while the probable amount 
of drunkenness these represents is less than 50 per cent of the average for 1910 
to 1916, and only one third of the 1914-1916 average. If the rising trend before 
Prohibition be taken into account, it will be seen that the benefits of Prohibition 
are even greater than here indicated. 





i 


FURTHER ERRORS OF MR. SHIRK 59 


Rockville: Arrests for drunkenness fell between 
1917 and 1928, 66 per cent. 

Wallingford, for the same period, fell one-half. 

Willimantic, for the same period, fell more than 
half. 

Torrington, for the same period, fell nearly 60 
per cent. 

New Britain, for the same period, fell 33 per cent. 

Danbury, for the same period, fell 21 per cent. 

Stamford, between 1917 and 1925, fell slightly 
less than 30 per cent. 

Norwich, between 1915 and 1925, fell about 33 
per cent. 

New Haven, between 1915 and 1925, fell 30 per 
cent. 

In the case of New Haven, Professor Farnam pre- 
sented the figures of arrests for drunkenness by 
months, showing that arrests fell from 371 in Janu- 
ary, 1919, to 52 for the corresponding month of 
1920; in February, 1920, they were 45, and rose to 
90 in March. The arrests went up after that, but 
the total for 1920 was considerably below the total 
for 1919 (1, p. 1036). 

“These figures show very clearly,” Professor Far- 
nam states, “what has been observed elsewhere, that 
when the law first became effective it was expected 
that it would be enforced, and the liquor dealers 
were apparently ready to observe it. The bars 
really were closed. Then the weakness of the ad- 
ministration became apparent. People saw that the 


60 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


penalties imposed were light. They found that 
many newspapers attacked the law as a violation of 
‘personal liberty’; that they had no word of censure 
for those who violated Prohibition, and no word of 
approval for the police who enforced it. It was 
natural, therefore, that there should be a reaction.” 


Enforcement Slackened, 1921-23 


These things, which were true with respect to 
Prohibition enforcement in Connecticut, were largely 
true for the three years following 1920 throughout 
the Union, as reflected in most of the charts appear- 
ing in this book of figures denoting a lessened down- 
ward curve, in some cases tending upward in 1921- 
23, as compared with 1920, and reflecting a rela- 
tively slack enforcement of the Prohibition law. In 
1924, the curve of slackened enforcement moderates 
in all these charts, indicating a recently resumed 
period of increased observance of the law. In all 
these cases the shaded portion of the charts indicates 
the solid and continuing Prohibition gains, despite 
the temporary reaction, as compared with the pre- 
prohibition level. 

Referring to the period 1921-23, as reflected by the 
lull in the downward course of the curve of enforce- 
ment, I recall, according to a recent article in the 
North American Review, that Secretary Mellon was 
asked whether, in his opinion, Prohibition was re- 
sponsible for the recurrent spirit of lawlessness. 
He replied: 


FURTHER ERRORS OF MR. SHIRK 61 


I think not. I believe it to be due, at least 
in part, to the general let-down and disorgani- 
zation following the war. Of course, the Pro- 
hibition law has suffered in the general break- 
down in common with other laws. Unbiased 
opinion everywhere supports this view. 


That such opinion is correct is amply substan- 
tiated by the facts thus far set forth in the charts 
of arrests for drunkenness in the cities of the Union 
as a whole, in New York City with respect to first 
offenders and confirmed drunkards, in the groups of 
wet and dry states, and in a typically hostile wet 
state like Connecticut. 


New York City Again 

The authentic figures of total arrests for drunk- 
enness per capita in New York City, are represented 
in Chart 19. This chart, for the wet city of New 
York as a whole, tells much the same story as the 
New York City charts for convictions of first of- 
fenders, and from them nothing can be gained tv 
confirm the impression of Mr. Shirk and the gentle- 
men of the Moderation League that New York is 
generating a crime wave due to Prohibition, or that 
its youth are becoming corrupted by Prohibition 
influences. 


Shirk’s Tale of Drunken Drivers 


Another minor exhibit prepared by Mr. Shirk 
stresses the increase of arrests for drunken driving 


100. 





YW mT 


= GAIN SINCE PROHIBITION | 


Yf 






Percent 
ot 
2 


\ 
. 
‘ 


Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
44.4 43.8 44.9 47.9 49.3 45.9 48.4 44.7 30.1 21.0 18.6 21.5 26.1 36.3 36.6 


Arrests per 1000 population, 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (7.25) 
7.83 7.10 7.15 7.49 7.57 6.93 7.19 6.54 4.83 2.97 2.59 2.95 3.58 4.83 .4.80 
101_ £8 _99_103_104 $6 _99_ 90 _60_ 41 36 41 _49 67 66 
Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 55 7 90 90 


Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (18.1) 

TSR TS VLSI Del SO TNs Br ean T 7 6 6 5 5 5 

101 98 99 103 104 96 $39 90 60 41 36 31 29 30 329 


18. DRUNKENNESS IS CUT TO PROBABLY LESS THAN A THIRD OF 
WHAT IT WAS 
in New York State 


(Number of arrests for intoxication in 29 cities, including New York City, having 
a total population in 1920 of 7,182,573, as reported by police departments, 
Full line shows the probable total cases of intoxication.) 


For all its exaggerated reputation to the contrary, New York State can be seen 
to be no worse than its neighbors, for the rate of arrests per capita in the total 
population has apparently already passed its peak, and drunkenness itself is 
probably now less than 380 per cent of what it used to be prior to 1917. 


100-} 


Percent 
Qa 
oO 


40.}: 





SeIOE IOLA Nam igwisia, are 3 1916. i my 1923 1924 
Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
mits ee0.G 128.0 20.3, 20:2 17.1) 18.8 ) T15)-b.6>, 28.9). 6.2)8.6,'10.6°10.9 


Arrests per 1000 population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (4.1) 
eee Cee th aoe AP Sh WW Oia eas O yl, aeOle vb hO Esbo BTS OLS 
W115_110_102 105_98_ 95 _78 63 _32 24 24 27 37 44 44 
Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
Coe som a0 ano 40. 40) .40) 640) 40. 40/940). 85 TE» 90: 90 


Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 

and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (10.3) 
Laem 10 108) 80 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 
20 Oe LOZ LOS 98) 995 078) 96S 32.024 0.24 1.19). 19) 519) 419 


19. FOUR FIFTHS OF DRUNKENNESS APPARENTLY ELIMINATED 
in New York City 


(Total population in 1920 was 5,620,048. Computations made from data fur- 
nished by the police department. Full line shows the probable total cases of 
intoxication. ) ; 


Few cities are so widely criticised and so closely watched by the rest of 
the nation as is New York City. Here, too, the large foreign element makes for 
a strong ‘wet’ sentiment, which brought about the repeal of the Mullen-Gage 
law giving local codperation to the federal “dry” forces. In New York City the 
arrests for drunkenness are now less than half as many as before Prohibition. 
To estimate the total amount of drunkenness, the same hypothetical percentages, 
representing increased police severity, are employed as in the country in general— 
simply for lack of any special estimate for New York City although probably 
the increased severity is not as great there as elsewhere, 


64 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


of motor cars in the chief cities of the United States 
since the enactment of the Volstead act. He 
says: 


The increases under the Volstead act have 
been enormous. In New York City, for example, 
the arrests from 1916 to 1919 averaged 161. In 
1920, the first dry year, they rose to 334, 
dropped slightly in 1921, and then skyrocketted 
to 944 by 1924, resulting in an increase of 484 
per cent above the pre-prohibition level. 

Chicago, our second largest city, shows sub- 
stantially the same result. Arrests there were 
282 in 1919 and 1,523 in 1924, an increase of 
440 per cent. 

Washington, our national capital, shows 53 
arrests for drunken driving in 1918, and by 
1924 had reached 616, an increase of 1,062 per 
cent. 

In Milwaukee, arrests were 10 in 1918 and 
11 in 1919. They reached 292 in 1924, which 
is a rise of 2,554 per cent (1, p. 345). 


Mr. Shirk, allowing for the increase of motor 
vehicles in the United States, from 1919 to 1924, 
notes that this was only 132 per cent, “whereas 
drunken drivers increased in the same period about 
304 per cent on the average. The difference of 222 
per cent is clearly attributable to the Volstead 
act” (1, p. 346). 

Undoubtedly there has been an increase in the 
relative figures of arrests for drunken driving. Mr. 
Shirk accounts for it by saying that drinking before 
Prohibition was largely done indoors—in the 


FURTHER ERRORS OF MR. SHIRK 65 


saloons—and after Prohibition, from a flask on the 
road: 

This is a motorized age, and the automobile 
is a dangerous instrument which must be kept 
out of the hands of intoxicated people; there- 
fore, ban intoxicants. 

The result of this, one of the strongest arguments 
for Prohibition, 


unfortunately, has been precisely the contrary 
to what the prohibitionists intended and 
prophesied (1, p. 346). 

Implicit in this criticism is the advocacy either of 
the return of the saloon wherein men may do their 
dangerous drinking, or the return of beer and wine 
—which amounts to the same thing. 

The transportation industry maintained an effec- 
tive prohibition against just this sort of thing when 
it instituted the rule of total abstinence among all 
of its employees, to whom it intrusted the lives of 
the public traveling upon its trains. Instant dis- 
missal from the service was the penalty, and it was 
effective. 


Non-Professional Drivers Increase 


But in the case of drunken drivers of motor cars, 
we have to deal with a phenomenon that has noth- 
ing to do with the imposition of the Prohibition law, 
namely, the acquirement by the masses, especially 
- during the last seven years, of machines potentially 


66 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


as dangerous as the locomotive. With it has come 
the licensing, on a gigantic scale, of amateur drivers, 
out of all proportion to the licensing of professional 
chauffeurs. 

Not only is there a pronounced increase of ama- 
teur drivers, but the character of the population that 
has come universally to own and drive cars is radi- 
cally different from that of the class to whom this 
form of recreation was originally accessible. The 
automobile has fallen into the hands of reckless and 
dangerous elements, unskilled and given to the 
coarser pleasures, seeking relaxation in drink. Pro- 
fessor Thomas Nixon Carver of Harvard (3, pp. 
63-64), in a recent book has fully analyzed the con- 
sequences of the recent wide diffusion of prosperity, 
which has put purchasing power into the hands of 
irresponsible men and women of low mentality. 

This has created a market for the sale of all kinds 
of goods and services, including a flood of cheap 
literature, tabloid newspapers and magazines, the 
more sensational types of film plays, and so on, 
including advertisements of a sort designed to appeal 
to people of this character. Of course, the automo- 
bile offers as much attraction to them as to anybody. 
It may quite possibly prove, ultimately, the means 
of diverting their pleasure-seeking into more whole- 
some channels. But inevitably the arrests for 
drunken driving would increase for a considerable 
period, with the cheapening of the manufacture of 
automobiles by new invention and large-scale pro- 


GAIN SINCE PROHIBITION: 
UL, 






PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 


MP iraetrnige ac edephicatecete eters eee, Meercte nae ste geabrer hiv eata te lan 


1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 


Arrests for Drunkenness (in thousands) 
POMS CL CaO eT RO noe Wik ies AE 
Arrests for Traffic Violations (in thousands) 
58 65 73 111 #156 153 184 210 261 
Arrests for Drunkenness per 100 Arrests for 
Traffic Violations 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level 


(135) 
135 109 76.7 32.4 18.0 26.2 33 


2 35.6 30.3 
100 sl 57 24 13 19 25 26 22 


20. TRAFFIC OFFENDERS VS. 
DRUNEKARDS 
in ten cities 


(Arrests for intoxication and for all traffic 
offenses as reported by the police departments, 
in ten cities, including five cities in Ohio; and New 
York City; Dallas, Tex. ; Washington, D. C. ; Phila- 
delphia, Pa. and Baltimore, Md. These are in 
five states and the District of Columbia, and 
have a combined population of 8,770,000.) 


In these ten cities, with nearly one twelfth the 
total population of the United States, the arrests 
for drunkenness have become almost negligible 
as compared with the arrests for traffic violations. 
The usefulness of this comparison arises from 
the fact that the increase in police activity of 
enforcement has probably proceeded in like ratio 
for each class of offenses. 


68 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


duction, and the maintenance of high wages in the 
United States. 


Increased Probability of Accidents 


There is another important consideration which 
should not be overlooked. ‘This is that the acci- 
dents from automobile driving, which, in most cases, 
lead to arrests for drunken driving, tend to increase 
far faster than the mere increase in the number of 
automobiles. Rather, they increase with the num- 
ber of times automobiles pass each other—which is, 
probably, approximately as the square of the num- 
ber of automobiles. If there are 100 automobiles in 
a city, each has the possibility of colliding with the 
other 99. That makes 100 x 99, or 9,900 possible 
collisions. But if there are 1,000 automobiles, ten 
times as many, the number of possible collisions is 
1,000 x 999 or 999,000, which is not ten times as 
many but about a hundred times as many! 

I do not know whether automobile accidents have 
or have not increased as the square of the increased 
number of cars, as this computation of possible col- 
lisions suggests; but 1f this is the case, an increase 
in the number of cars of 132 per cent (2e., an 
increase in the ratio of 2.32 to 1.00) would naturally 
result, other things equal, in an increase in the 
number of accidents (and in the number of arrests) 
of 2.32) x (2.382) or 5.88 fold, 2.e., an increase of 
438 per cent instead of the 354 per cent which Mr. 
Shirk finds. 


FURTHER ERRORS OF MR. SHIRK 69 


These considerations should bring the figures of 
arrests for drunkenness among drivers more nearly 
into line with the demonstrated facts concerning de- 
creased totals of arrests for drunkenness in general 
among the states and cities of the country. 


CHAPTER V 
DRINKING AMONG THE YOUTH 


At the Nation’s Capital 


The exaggerations as to increased drinking among 
the youth of the country are next in order to be 
considered. And here Mr. Shirk is found not want- 
ing in willingness to contribute to the testimony as 
to their corruption. 

He declares that while there is little that is 
authoritative on the subject, records of arrests of 
young people for drunkenness are furnished by the 
police department of Washington, D. C. He reports: 


Arrests of persons under 22 years old aver- 
age 44 a year for the four pre-prohibition 
years 1914-1917. A bone-dry law was enacted 
for Washington before National Prohibition 
became effective, and immediately youthful 
drunkenness increased. In 1918 it rose to 73 
and by 1924 had reached 282, an increase of 
540 per cent above the pre-prohibition level. 

. This condition in Washington merely con- 
firms what is known to exist in the rest of the 
country (1, p. 346). 


Now it wculd be interesting to learn the propor- 
tion of young people in Washington to total popula- 
70 


DRINKING AMONG THE YOUTH 71 


tion in war time and during the years following the 
war, as compared with the years from 1914 to 1917. 
No sooner was war declared than the capital of the 
nation became a vast encampment, surrounded by 
army concentration camps and filled with young 
men in newly created civilian stations drawn from 
every part of the country. Washington was imme- 
diately a city charged with the excitements of mob- 
ilization, war preparations, organization of indus- 
tries and all manner of activities on a national scale, 
and it became a Mecca for the youth of the country. 
The doubling and trebling of the government per- 
sonnel remained to a large extent even after the 
war, because the bureaus and commissions had 
become permanently enlarged. The artificial atmos- 
phere and stimulations of the nation’s capital might 
easily produce among certain of the youth who 
flocked there a record of excesses that would hardly 
be typical of conditions among the youth in other 
parts of the country. It is unfortunate for Mr. 
Shirk’s contentions that he fails to present such a 
record for any other city. Moreover, the Superin- 
tendent of the Police Department of Washington 
reports: 


Prior to July 1, 1923, it was not an offense 
to be intoxicated in the District of Columbia.* 


Here is another case of increased severity of 


* Report sent to Irving Fisher, August, 1926, by Major Edwin 
B. Hesse, Superintendent, Police Department, Washington, D. C. 


72 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


arrests, as enjoined by law, to explain Mr. Shirk’s 
charts based on raw statistical data. 


Prohibition in the Colleges 


There is ample testimony concerning the effect 
on youth of Prohibition—not only the testimony 
already given, including the diminishing totals of 
first offenders on the charge of drunkenness, but 
quite as typical a record of Prohibition enforcement 
in the colleges. 

The case of Yale University, in fact, presents a 
unique test of a change of custom in the face of 
disapproving opinion. 

There can be no doubt that the prevailing senti- 
ment among Yale students is wet. The statistics of 
the Senior class of Yale College, published early in 
1926, showed that 80 per cent of that class were wet 
in their sympathies. This is a larger proportion 
than the figures for Harvard reported during 1925, 
and far larger than the recent survey of eleven 
colleges, mostly Middle Western, which show that 
two-thirds of the men and four-fifths of the women 
students favor strict enforcement. 

Not only is the Yale student sentiment prevail- 
ingly wet, but the city and state in which Yale 
is located are among the wettest in the Nation. 
Connecticut did not ratify the Eighteenth Amend- 
ment, and recently refused an opportunity to tighten 
up its inadequate enforcement legislation. The news- 
papers of New Haven are uniformly wet. Many 


DRINKING AMONG THE YOUTH 73 


judges are wet. Besides living in this damp 
atmosphere, the students largely come from the 
great wet cities, especially New York, and a large 
fraction of the students are from homes of the well- 
to-do who can support wine cellars. Thus tradition 
and environment conspire to moisten these young 
men’s minds, if not their throats. Moreover, the 
students are just at the age at which, we are so often 
told, Prohibition is corrupting the youth. 

If, therefore; anywhere in this great country, Pro- 
hibition ought to prove a rank failure, it should be 
among such a group of susceptible young men as we 
have at Yale. I have taken great pains to ascertain 
the actual facts in the case. Not relying on my own 
impressions, I went to those who had the recorded 
facts of students in disciplinary cases, the eight au- 
thorities who knew the facts at first hand, and far 
better than others. At least two of these eight men 
I know to be strongly opposed to Prohibition. One 
I know to be strongly in favor. The attitude of 
the other five I do not know positively, but I be- 
lieve that it is mostly opposed to Prohibition. The 
facts at Yale, as these authorities have given them 
to me in writing, are summarized as follows: 

Frederick §S. Jones, outgoing Dean of Yale Col- 
lege, says: 

I think, on the whole, there is decidedly less 
drinking than before Prohibition, and condi- 


tions have been improving with time. On the 
other hand, the cases with which I have to deal 


74 


PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


are often more acute than those encountered 
before Prohibition. The college fraternities 
have forbidden liquor in their houses, and are 
living up to this rule. 


C. W. Mendell, incoming Dean of Yale College: 


I should say on the whole that Fay Camp- 
bell’s summary [see below] of the matter was 
reasonably good, and as near to the facts as 
one could hope to come. It seems to me, how- 
ever, that he has overlooked one very impor- 
tant fact, that there is more drinking of hard 
liquor now than there was before Prohibition. 
This, I think, cannot be questioned. In the 
old days the staple drink was beer, and I am in- 
clined to think that it led to very little harm. 
The present drinking of hard liquor almost al- 
ways results in trouble of some sort, so that 
scenes of public disgrace are rather worse than 
they used to be. The drinking is more occa- 
sional, but more disastrous. Personally, I am 
not a believer in Prohibition. 


E. Fay Campbell, Secretary of the Yale University 


Christian Association: 


The police feel that this year there was less 
drinking at the junior prom. than at any time in 
many years. There was a great deal of drinking 
at the games. I am perfectly sure, however, 
that there was not nearly as much drinking as 
in 1915 when I was a sophomore. 


Charles H. Warren, Dean of the Sheffield Scien- 


tific School: 


DRINKING AMONG THE YOUTH 75 


Four years ago I was appalled at the drink- 
ing among the students. The alumni were even 
worse. Since that time there has been a very 
steady improvement. I think there is less 
drinking now than ever before in the University. 
The worst offenders are the returning alumni at 
the football games and at commencement. 


Charles C. Clarke, Professor of Romance Lan- 
guages: 


I am not a prohibitionist and have never been. 
I will admit to you, however, that the effect of 
Prohibition at Yale University has been good. 
I know whereof I speak, for I have been a mem- 
ber of the committee on discipline from a time 
dating back many years before Prohibition. I 
know conditions intimately. I do not pretend 
that the students are prohibitionists or are not 
drinking. But the change has been simply 
revolutionary. In the old days our committee 
was constantly busy with cases involving intox1- 
cation and the disorders arising from it. Now 
we have practically no business of the kind at 
all to transact. Moreover, this is in spite of the 
fact that in the old days we rarely troubled 
ourselves about a case of mere intoxication if 
it had not resulted in some kind of public dis- 
order, whereas now intoxication of itself is 
regarded as calling for the severest penalty. 


Roswell P. Angier, former Dean of Freshmen: 


Among freshmen the situation got distinctly 
better from year to year of my administration, 
September, 1920, to June, 1924. 


76 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
Percy T. Walden, present Dean of Freshmen: 


There was much more open traffic in liquor 
at the games this year. The freshmen found 
more drinking places this year than formerly, 
at least since Prohibition came in. 


James R. Angell, President of Yale University: 


The impression which I get from all well- 
informed alumni with whom I talk is that, 
despite the all too frequent violation of the 
law, the amount of drinking at present, and 
particularly the amount of excessive drinking, 
is very much less than it was in earlier years. 


I would summarize my own conclusions, based 
on the authorities quoted, on my own observations, 
and on conversations with others informed on the 
situation, as follows: 


(1) The number of discipline cases at Yale in 
which drinking is a factor is now very much smaller 
than before Prohibition. 

(2) The improvement has been especially notice- 
able in the last few years. 

(3) Such drinking as still remains at Yale is often 
more concentrated and uproarious than before the 
Prohibition period. When liquor that was largely 
beer was easily obtainable, many got it, got it often, 
and got it in small quantities. Now that it is harder 
to get, fewer get it, get it more seldom, but when 
they do get it, make up for lost time. 

(4) Prohibition created a defiant attitude in many 


DRINKING AMONG THE YOUTH 77 


students. It is unpopular even among many who 
do not try to circumvent the law.* 

The various canvasses of student opinion in the 
colleges of the United States are interesting chiefly 
as reflecting the opinion of the students’ elders, wet 
or dry, according to the general prevalence of opin- 
ion in their localities. 

The testimony of more than two hundred college 
and university heads who answered the question- 
naire sent out by the Literary Digest to approxi- 
mately all such institutions of the country, brought 
answers declaring the beneficial effect of Prohibition 
on the student bodies and on youth in general. 

To the question whether drinking had increased 
or decreased during Prohibition as they had ob- 
served it, 213 college heads representing 44 states 
and nearly a third of the total of higher colleges 
and universities, almost unanimously reported that 
drinking in the colleges and drinking by the younger 
generation as a whole had decreased. The conclu- 
sion of the Literary Digest, drawn from such testi- 
mony, is that, “there are actually fewer drinkers in 
the colleges now than in the days when there were 
only one-third the present number of students” 
(53, p. 30.) 


* A poll taken at Yale University at the time of the Prohibition 
hearings at Washington in April, 1926, recorded the belief of a 
large majority of students that Prohibition has increased drinking. 
But, as they were on an average thirteen years old when Pro- 
hibition came into effect and were not at Yale University at the 
time but scattered all over the United States, their opinion 
canpot carry much weight. 







100+: 






i), GAIN SINCE 









eS 





Percent 
on 
fam) 





1910 191% 1915 1916 1917 1938 1919 1920 1921 


Total number of Delinquency Arraignments (at Children’s Court) 
7.95 8.04 8.56 8.02 7.90 7.93 5.97 7.23 7.04 6.73 5.88 5.12 4.67 4.58 4.36 


Arraignments per 10,000 Juveniles 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (92.9) 
98.2 98.1 103. 95.7 93.3 92.6 69.0.82.7 83.0 75.3 64.6 56.2 57.0 49.8 46.6 
106 106 111 103 100 100 74 89 89 8&1 70 690 61 £58 #«+50 


4 


21. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IS CUT IN HALF 
in New York City 


(Total arraignments for juvenile delinquency aged 7 to 15 years, per 10,000 
of the juvenile population. Computed from Annual Reports of the Children’s 
Court, of New York City.) 


No safeguard against the so-called crime wave in the risin eneration 

been found which seems more effective than Prohibition. Hor the ateece he 
city’s children, drink must go. For every life shown saved in this chart is 
worth many years of the future. The probable expectation of life of the 
average adult saved by Prohibition and the saving in the lives and morals of 
the young have increased with every year of Prohibition, 


100-}: 


PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
a 
° 


0 





“1921 1922 1923 1924 
Number of Children sipoehiesrs taet Children’s Court 


Yen kets we 
8722 8935 6365 7433 7321 7220 5824 5198 4619 4490 2492 


Children Arraigned per 10,000 Juveniles 

and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (94) 
SU SeILOSMU Pa SOU SS Go Gown OC Le OO wr 481) 826 
LOSE Len TOW eOOL Noo monn CON ,OLMVose Ole 29 


22. GERRY SOCIETY ARRAIGNMENTS REDUCED 
in New York City 


(Computations made from data obtained from the reports 
of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to 
Children.) 


Further evidence of reduced delinquency among children in 
New York City is shown in the records, charted above, of 
the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children 
(Gerry Society) of arraignments in the Children’s Court. 
These records show that a decline set in with the first 
wartime restrictions of drink, and continued under National 
Prohibition with a steadily downward trend until, in 1924, 
more than 70 per cent of the cases formerly handled bave 
disappeared. 







‘| PRE-PROHIBITION Yj 


WMT dd 


{OF PROHIBITION ; 





Bp 00.4 0 sche eters 


PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 


* i. 
7 g b oe 5 oP ere : 

Og ESP Pal at Pl web ree . . . OG OCR 
ORATOR eR MO) eK A i ae a Pe ° 


1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1 21 1922 1923 
Number of Cases 
2288 2489 2013 2718 2477 2071 1643 1375 1140 1260 


Cases per million population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (482) 
448 469 380 506 454 375 292 242 197 214 
104 108 88 117 105 87 68 56 46 #50 





23. LESS THAN HALF OF CHILDREN 
FORMERLY BROUGHT INTO COURT 
in New York City 


(Computations made from data obtained from reports 
of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty 
to Children.) 


The Gerry Society (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty 
to Children) finds that during the period of National 
Prohibition the number of cases of juvenile criminality 
has fallen sharply to less than 50 per cent of that in 
Pre-prohibition years. 


3 





© 
2 







os 
? 


a3 
>. 


PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL, 


ieee ee et 





waa a ee sone’ a esas se ee eoe ee eee ee eee . 


1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 


Number of Arrests 
2279 2217 2101 2186 1553 1191 1876 1026 1129 


Arrests per million population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Tevel 


(431) 
431 414 386 395 276 209 238 175 190 
100 96 90 92 64 49 55 41 44 
LL SE SE EE a ENTS SESE 





24. DECREASED ARRESTS OF BOYS AND 
GIRLS FOR CRIMES IN GENERAL 
in New York City 


(Computations made from data obtained from the 
Police Department of New York City.) 


Immediately after the adoption of National Pro- 
hibition one third fewer boys and girls were 
arrested for general criminality. In succeeding 
years this proportion of arrests has declined still 
further, until in 1923 and 1924, they were less 
than 45 per cent of the pre-war average. The 
benefit of Prohibition has been to save thousands 
of youngsters from criminal pursuits, 


82 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


Fewer Juvenile Delinquents 

Another good measure of the moral improvement 
of the rising generation is to be derived from the 
statistics of juvenile delinquency. In Chart 21 1s 
shown a rapid decline of the curve of juvenile delin- 
quency in New York City. Here is a typical major 
exhibit illustrating the benefits of National Prohibi- 
tion in a wet city, undefended by a local law such 
as most cities benefit by in codperation with the 
Federal Prohibition enforcement agents. Despite 
this handicap, juvenile delinquency has been cut in 
half in New York City. 

These and other facts brought out in this chapter 
confirm, and are confirmed by, the facts brought out 
in previous chapters, especially those of Chapter IT, 
showing that new recruits in the army of alcoholics 
are rapidly decreasing. 


CHAPTER VI 
PuBLic SENTIMENT 


Dislike of Prohibition Exaggerated 

So far I have shown the exaggerations of Mr. 
Shirk and his associates as to the non-enforcement 
of Prohibition. I shall next point out that they 
exaggerate the lack of public sentiment behind Pro- 
hibition. 

In the opening chapter I have already stated my 
belief that National Prohibition came prematurely, 
before a proper try-out of War-time Prohibition had 
sufficiently prepared the population of the large 
cities for Constitutional Prohibition. The very fact 
that there should now be a few outstanding exam- 
ples of leaders of public opinion opposed to National 
Prohibition, however misled they are as to the facts 
of improvement of the nation’s morale under this 
law, seems to be conclusive evidence that Prohibi- 
tion came a bit too soon. Only two-thirds of the 
country was fully ready for it, while the great cities 
in the East were not ready at all.. Uncle Sam had 
swallowed the camel, seven stomachs and all, but 
gagged at the tail! 

83 


84 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


Growth of Public Sentiment 

But, although the country at large forced Prohi- 
bition upon the cities of the East, there is reassur- 
ance in the fact that, even among these, the pro- 
nounced benefits of the new régime are understood 
and appreciated by a large minority. 

Moreover, the antecedent spread of Prohibition 
among the states and their sub-divisions records a 
historic growth, on which the enforcement of the 
Federal Law is now broadly based. 

The Prohibition movement logically developed 
from the temperance movement during the latter 
half of the nineteenth century. By 1914, a large 
area of communities had abolished the saloons by 
local option, and nine states had passed Prohibition 
statutes. But within the next four years, 23 more 
states abolished the liquor traffic within their bor- 
ders. 

After Congress submitted the Eighteenth Amend- 
ment for ratification by the states, it was over- 
whelmingly ratified by 45 states in rapid succession. 
Three years later New Jersey, the 46th state, ratified 
it, leaving only Connecticut and Rhode Island dis- 
senting. No other of the nineteen amendments 
to the Constitution, including those embodying the 
Bill of Rights, has received the affirmative votes of 
so many states as did the Prohibition amendment. 

On top of that, the Volstead act overrode by a 
two-thirds majority a presidential veto, becoming 
effective January 17, 1920. To be sure, this impres- 


PUBLIC SENTIMENT 85 


sive majority was secured not altogether as an 
expression of the popular will. The Anti-Saloon 
League, patterning after the very thorough organi- 
zation of the liquor interests in every congressional 
and state legislative district, had built up a superb 
political machine of deadly efficiency. It had 
already filled a political graveyard of national pro- 
portions of which the membership of Congress was 
on notice. 

But the efficiency of the Prohibition machine, in 
turn, depended, in the last analysis, upon its ability 
to appeal to local sentiment throughout the Union. 
This sentiment had grown steadily, after numerous 
experiments with all kinds of licensing and restric- 
tive measures, until Prohibition resulted, first among 
a few states, then among many, until nearly three- 
quarters of them had adopted statewide Prohibition 
and swept it irresistibly into the Federal Constitu- 
tion. It went there, in the end, by a headlong 
impulse, without regard to important and yet un- 
converted sections of public opinion. 

Yet we have found indubitable evidences even in 
these sections that Prohibition has worked quite 
well. Since this is so, the process of their conver- 
sion should not be so difficult. 

In short, those who oppose Prohibition with the 
immoderation of the Moderation League, exagger- 
ate greatly both the extent of non-enforcement and 
the difficulty of enforcement because of lack of 
public sentiment. Prohibition ought to be far 


86 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


better enforced than it is, and ought to have more 
public sentiment behind it. But what has been 
accomplished is substantial, and the present public 
sentiment in favor of going forward, not backward, 
is, to say the least, strong and determined. 


Historica Norse 

When we are confronted with the facts of drinking 
in past centuries we begin to realize how the world 
had moved even before Prohibition came, or was dis- 
cussed. 

We read now with amazed amusement that at the 
funeral of a minister’s wife, in New England in 1678, 
fifty-one and one-half gallons of wine were consumed by 
the mourners (38, p. 29); or that an Act on the part 
of the Virginia Assembly was necessary in 1664 in order 
to provide that “Ministers shall not give themselves to 
excess in drinking or riot, spending their time idly by day 
or night, in playing at dice, cards, and other unlawful 
games” (38, p. 26). 

Hard and excessive drinking was tolerated in every 
walk of life when New York was first settled by the 
Dutch, we are told by Mr. Robert E. Corradini, who made 
a special study of the effect of Prohibition on Broadway. 
“Even the first ‘dominie’ often indulged in immoderate 
tippling. ... One of the Dutch Burgomasters was, at 
the same time, tavern keeper. He owned the wine, beer 
and liquor shop at Number One Broadway. While under 
the Dutch and British heavy drinking was commonplace, 
the advent of American Independence did not affect the 
thirst and the habits of the people very much. The fol- 
lowing advertisement in the New York Gazette of 
December 4, 1769, may indicate how drinking was 
looked upon: 





PUBLIC SENTIMENT 87 


‘An hostler— 

that gets drunk no more than twelve times in a year, 
and will bring with him a good recommendation, is 
wanted. Such a person will meet with encourage- 
ment by applying to H. Gaine.’ 


“The prevailing formula of those days seems to have 
been: 


‘Not drunk is he who from the floor 
Can rise again and still drink more, 


But drunk is he who prostrate lies 
Without the power to drink or rise’” (44, pp. 3-4). 


Lady Astor, of the British Parliament, tells us that 
in England even five hundred years ago an Act was 
passed “for Keepers of Alehouses to be bound by Recog- 
nizances . . . inasmuch as intolerable hurts and troubles 
to the Commonwealth of this Realm do daily grow and 
increase through such abuses and disorders as are had 
and used in common alehouses and other houses called 
tippling houses.” Only a hundred years ago in England, 
she tells us, there was “a volume of evidence as to the 
national demoralization caused by excessive indulgence 
in gin and other such spirituous liquors” (36, pp. 265- 
266). 

“Tn the early part of the Eighteenth Century, London 
gin shops advertised that people might get drunk for a 
penny,” Professor Henry W. Farnam of Yale Univer- 
sity reminds us, “and that clean straw in comfortable 
cellars would be provided for customers. This was a 
great boon for the individualist, but even Merry Eng- 
land saw that this kind of debauchery was not very use- 
ful to the wife and children of the drunkard, and passed 
the gin act of 1736” (45, p. 9). 


88 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


It was about sixty-five years ago that an Act in Eng- 
land prohibited miners’ pay offices being contiguous to 
liquor premises (1860), and about fifty years ago that 
an Act prohibited the payment of workers’ wages on 
liquor premises (1872-1873). About twenty-five years 
ago, in England, it was still necessary to pass an Act to 
further “strengthen the law against drunkenness,” and 
to “forbid the holding of Petty Sessions in Public 
Houses” (1902); also an Act to exclude children under 
fourteen from the bars of Public Houses and to prohibit 
the giving of alcohol to children under five (1908)— 
Acts that attest with eloquence to the conditions and 
distresses that must have aroused communities to take 
such steps (54, pp. 266, 267). 

In Colonial days in America men drank as they ate, as 
a matter of course, we are told in “Save America”: 
“Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts said March 3, 
1639: ‘We observed it a common fault with our grown 
people that they gave themselves up to drink hot waters 
very immoderately.’” And we read a little later of a 
minister, who would appear drunk at the communion 
table. His parishioners, finally deciding that this was 
too much, tried to remove him. But the ministers of his 
community rallied to him and nothing could be done 
(18, p. 17). 

“At the beginning of the Eightenth Century, when the 
New World was setting up in business, it was ‘drink’ the 
Old World herald, usher and sergeant at arms of feudal 
power that had charge,” Mr. John G. Woolley tells us, 
in “A Hundred Years of Temperance.” “Seed time was 
time to drink. Harvest time waved its yellow banners 
over jugs in the fence corners. Barns and homes and 
schools were raised with the black bottle. The bar was 
required by law to be set up, convenient to the church. 
The sacrament was alcoholic. The chief drug in the 


PUBLIC SENTIMENT 89 


pharmacopeeia was spirits. Drink was godfather at every 
christening, master of ceremonies at every wedding, first 
aid in every accident and assistant undertaker at every 
funeral. It had come with the Spanish to St. Augustine 
in 1565. It had carried the first Virginia election for 
John Smith in 1607. It was the “Dutch courage” of 
Manhattan Island in 1615. It led the prayers on 
Plymouth Rock in 1620. It arrived in Baltimore in 1634. 
It fuddled the brotherhood of Philadelphia in 1682. It 
was the first organized treason, in the whisky rebellion 
of 1791. It has been the fata morgana of many millions 
of immigrants to this day” (46, p. 6, 1908). 

Only one hundred years ago a town in Massachusetts 
with 1,800 inhabitants consumed 10,000 gallons of rum 
in one year (38, p. 97). 

And just as a sample of what alcoholic drink did to 
them, in those days, it may be mentioned that of 623 
adults in a Maryland almshouse, 554 of them were there 
from poverty believed to have been produced by drink 
(38, p. 99). 


CHARI B RULE 
Tue PASSING OF THE SALOON 


Degree of Federal Enforcement 

Thus far I have tried to clear the records of the 
exaggerations which heavily overhang them in the 
minds of honest doubters as to the efficacy of the 
Prohibition law. In particular, I have dealt with 
the decrease of arrests and the diminution of the 
drink habit under Prohibition, in the United States, 
as well as among typical states, cities, and classes 
of the population. The true and corrected figures 
show that the changes have been for the better. 

In this chapter I shall give some facts to indicate 
the degree of Federal enforcement, and emphasize 
the chief results. Assistant Attorney General Mabel 
Walker Willebrandt, in charge of cases under the 
Volstead act, stated to the Senate Judiciary Sub- 
committee at Washington that Federal convictions 
rose from 22,000 in 1922, with $4,000,000 collected 
in fines, to 38,000 in 1925, and $7,681,000 in fines. 
Jail sentences, also, increased from an average of 
21 days in 1923 to 34 days in 1924, and, in 1925, 
to more than 43 days. In 1922, total penitentiary 
sentences of 1,552 years were given; 3,406 years in 

90 


THE PASSING OF THE SALOON 91 


1924, and 4,569 years in 1925. To the question “Is 
the law enforced?” Mrs. Willebrandt’s reply was: 
“Increasingly effectively” (1, p. 1129). 

For example, in Gary, Indiana, some fifteen major 
violators of the law had been caught, including the 
mayor, police officers, judges, and a number of en- 
forcement agents; they were at that time serving 
terms in Federal penitentiaries under the laws 
against conspiracy and bribery. The more recent 
conviction of William V. Dwyer, guilty of conduct- 
ing a $20,000,000-a-year business in rum running, 
signalizes a control over smuggling by sea that has 
discouraged the big operators to the extent of their 
withdrawal of hundreds of vessels from the famous 
“Rum Row” that once found it profitable to hover 
off the coast beyond the twelve-mile limit. General 
Andrews, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in 
charge of Prohibition Enforcement, recently an- 
nounced that codperation with the British govern- 
ment had been arranged whereby “Rum Row” will 
be still further shriveled up. 

Doubtless the violators of the Prohibition law 
blame the law itself for their plight, just as the 
grafters convicted of importing bootleg milk into 
New York are inclined to find fault with the law 
under which they were convicted. The eminent 
grafters of the Tweed Ring, the gamblers of the 
Louisiana Lottery, the criminals of the Crédit 
Mobilier scandals, and all swindlers, high and low, 
- when caught, like the wretch who felt the halter 


92 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


draw, lack good opinion of the law. Public senti- 
ment, in the history of all these cases, has uniformly 
turned a deaf ear to the offenders. 


Active Local Codperation 

Mrs. Willebrandt reported uniformly active oo- 
operation of state and Federal officials except from 
New York, which repealed its enforcement act. 

Following unification of the enforcement activities 
of the Prohibition Unit with the Coast- Guard and 
internal revenue officials, Assistant Secretary An- 
drews has reported success in the policy of employ- 
ing the best obtainable legal counsel and skilled 
enforcement agents, working under the Prohibition 
administrators at higher salaries. The Federal dis- 
trict attorneys have come to an effective under- 
standing with local enforcement officials as to the 
powers of the padlock in cases of illicit distribution 
of beverages; further, in certain districts, the Pro- 
hibition Unit gets the aid of landlords who realize 
that it 1s bad business to rent their buildings for 
the use of violators of the liquor laws. General 
Andrews has worked vigorously to cleanse the Pro- 
hibition Unit of its corrupt officials, and has con- 
centrated on the work of stopping the supply of 
illicit liquors at the source, looking with increased 
confidence to local help in enforcing the law in the 
states and municipalities. The efforts of enforce- 
ment officials in the Philadelphia district alone re- 
sulted in reducing the output commonly diverted 


THE PASSING OF THE SALOON 93 


into illicit channels, production falling at one time 
from 1,700,000 gallons at the denaturing plants to 
500,000 gallons in a single month. 

A similar achievement by the alcohol squad of 
the Prohibition Unit in New York, where the output 
of the denaturing plants fell from 600,000 gallons 
to 300,000 gallons during December, 1925, indicates 
progress in stopping one of the sources of bootleg 
liquor. ? 

In fact, the formule for making denatured alcohol 
under which it could easily be redistilled for beverage 
purposes, have been proscribed. According to recent 
reports, gasoline is being included as a denaturant. 
A new regulation for control of sacramental wine 
has reduced the output of this wine by more than 
50 per cent (1, p. 1406). The formal declara- 
tion for making household fruit juices, which people 
were mistaking for a permit to make wine, 200 gal- 
lons per family, has been eliminated. A way has 
been found to double the tax penalties on illicit 
whisky or alcohol, which was in force before Pro- 
hibition. The special alcohol squad, organized for 
control of beverage alcohol, beer, and near-beer, 
has proved efficient. From all his administrators in 
the field General Andrews received, early in 1926, 
special advices of gratifying strides in local law en- 
forcement throughout the country. 

In the lax city of New York, which has lacked a 
state enforcement act since 1923, a measure of Pro- 
hibition sentiment was indicated in the testimony 


94 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


of Federal Attorney Buckner before the Senate Sub- 
committee. On taking office in 1925, Mr. Buckner 
said that the police commissioner of New York be- 
gan turning over to him 15,000 complaints of vio- 
lations a month, or 180,000 complaints a year. 
These, he continued, were 


from neighbors and citizens made to the police 
commissioner. And he told me as police com- 
missioner that he would be removed from office, 
in his opinion, if he did not attempt to do 
something in that situation, even without any 
help in the State courts and with only the Fed- 
eral courts to go to. And even with the cases 
being thrown out as they were, yet receiving 
180,000 complaints a year from citizens, he cer- 
tainly could not sit idly by and do nothing 
(1, p. 99). 


“Crome Wave” Exaggerated 


To gauge further the law-abiding quality of New 
York’s citizenship, expressed in terms of compliance 
and benefits derived, the World League Against 
Aleoholism found, in its survey, that during 1923 
and 1924, when talk of a “crime wave” was in the 
air, the police reports showed that, as compared 
with the saloon year of 1916, arrests had decreased 
in offenses “against the person,’ Including many 
serious felonies; “against chastity”; ‘“‘against the 
family and children”; “against the administration 
of government”; against “property rights,” and in 
cases of “juvenile delinquency.” The accompany- 


THE PASSING OF THE SALOON 95 


ing charts depict a decreasing number of New York 
offenders in all these categories during the National 
Prohibition period. It is only in cases not related 
to alcoholism that any increases in arrests are noted, 
chiefly having to do with violations of the Motor 
Vehicle Law. As against these are marked decreases 
of arrests for drunkenness during 1923 and 1924, as 
compared with 1917. 

Contrasted with the arrests for drunkenness in the 
so-called moderate wine-drinking cities of Paris and 
Liege, Belgium, as well as with convictions for 
drunkenness in London, the corresponding records 
of New York are decidedly good. 

The “crime wave” on account of Prohibition, 
alleged at the National Prohibition hearings in 
Washington in 1926, by the Honorable Alfred J. 
Talley, Judge of the Court of General Sessions of 
the State of New York (1, p. 148), seems to be a 
myth. The testimony of that court’s probation off- 
cer, quoted by Judge Talley, as to the influence of 
speakeasies on the youth of to-day, culminating in 
lawless acts under the stimulation of poisonous 
whisky, seems to have too small a foundation to 
be very significant. The same may be said of the 
testimony of Mrs. Viola M. Anglin, deputy chief pro- 
bation officer of New York City, who could not give 
figures for thinking “that the children are suffer- 
ing more, that the wives are suffering more than 
they did before” (1, p. 480). Doubtless Mrs. Anglin 
hhas seen suffering among children and mothers, be- 





PROHIBITION 


eee 
OOO 


PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL. 


1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 19 
Number of Arrests 
5594 5559 5562 6049 3610 4408 4158 4155 4166 
Arrests per million population 
and per cents of aoe Pre-prohibition Level 
1060 


1060 1040 1020 913 642 772 718 709 700 
100° :9S $6 (86,61 73> €8 67 166 


25. CRIMES RELATED TO DRINK 
REDUCED 
in New York City 


(Computations made from data obtained from the 
Police Department of New York City.) 


The police department has found it necessary to 
arrest only two thirds as many offenders for 
crimes against chastity since Prohibition as were 
arrested before Prohibition. The marked benefit 
appeared immediately after the advent of National 
Prohibition, and after a slight reaction in the 
second year thereafter it became yet greater. 





PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL y» 


YM 


GAIN SINCE PROHIBITION 


y 





PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 


1910 1913 1912 1 


913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 
Number of Arrests 
218 421 296 399 406 369 239 142 118 VOMaQy Vis eo Leo iL 


Arrests per million population 

and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (66.8) 
A5.6 86.8 59.9 79.4 79.4 71.1 45.2 26.5 21.6 13.0 6.8 3.2 5.0 2.2 1.8 
68 130 90 119 119 106 68 40 32 19 10 5 3 3 





26. DISORDERLY HOUSES VIRTUALLY DISAPPEAR 
in New York City 


(Computations made from data obtained from records of the Court of Special 
Sessions, New York City.) 


With the passing of the saloon another age-long evil, that of institutionalized 
social vice, has all but disappeared. Both in their existence and in their 
destruction the two evils are inseparable. Note how closely the curve of this 
chart of arrests for keeping disorderly houses parallels the curves of reduced 
alcoholic consumption. These arrests to-day are only 3 per cent of what they 
used to be, and 97 per cent of disorderly houses are eliminated, chiefly due, in 
all probability, to National Prohibition. 





“jill 


Wy SINCE ica 


PERCENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 


aa a a 


Dh LOLA DAO Be ey belt bie he AL 


ects Ort be OAC a) rr A Cra et ber 


. ‘4916, sbeaoeaet Bn “T921 i922 1923 1924 
Number of Arrests 
7883 5504 4436 4350 3602 2360 2115 1717 1695 


Arrests per million population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level 


(1400) 
1400 1030 814 786 641 414 3865 292 284 
100 74 58 56 46 30 26 21 20 


27. MORAL TONE OF METROPOLIS 
IMPROVES 
in New York City 


(Computations made from data furnished by 
police departments.) 


Temperateness in speech would be expected as a 
consequence of the change of habits following 
the abolition of the drink traffic. Drink and 
foul language are closely associated, and this 
chart bears testimony to the passing of profanity 
as a public nuisance. Highty per cent of arrests 
for this cause have been prevented perhaps through 
National Prohibition. Along with it have disap- 
peared the mud and filth and slums that formerly 
distinguished the metropolis. 


PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 





100. VM, 


AIN SINCE PROHIBITION -: 


Q . 
1910 1911 1912 






Number of Arrests 
2566 2742 2365 2858 2701 2633 2089 1895 1266 1168 1087 1222 1481 1365 1177 


Arrests per million population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (511) 
688 566 478 570 529 508 386'354 232 211 198 214 256 231 197 
106 111 94 112 104 99 76 69 45 41 38 42 50 45 £39 


28. CASES OF ASSAULT AND BATTERY DECREASE 
in New York City 


(Computations made from data obtained from records of the Court of Special 
Sessions, New York City.) 


Crimes of violence thrive on drunkenness. The decrease in cases of assault and 
battery in the metropolis of the nation has amounted to about three fifths, due 
apparently to wartime restrictions and National Prohibition. 


100 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


cause of the drunken excesses of husbands who have 
imbibed poisonous bootleg liquors. But not so many 
are drinking, and those who do are not drinking so 
much as formerly. 

It may be true, as contended by Senator William 
C. Bruce of Maryland, 


that women and young boys and girls of social 
classes that never took a drink before are now 
indulging in liquors which are a menace to their 
morals and their health (1, p. 146). 
There are doubtless some of these. But their num- 
ber is not great in proportion to population and 
their excesses do not characterize the habits of 
American society in general. 

There is smuggling. There is corruption of Pro- 
hibition agents and police, and drunkenness among 
these. There is persistence of drinking in night 
clubs. But there is less of these things than there 
used to be in the days of saloons. 


The Saloon Has Gone 

What has all but disappeared is the saloon itself. 
This marked and sweeping change came at a time 
when the saloons of the licensed areas of the coun- 
try were increasing with unexampled rapidity. No 
higher authority for this statement need be cited 
than the testimony of Hugh F. Fox, secretary of the 
United States Brewers’ Association: 


About thirty years ago, suddenly came the 
invention of artificial refrigeration. followed by 


THE PASSING OF THE SALOON 101 


an enormous increase in immigration. The in- 
vention of artificial refrigeration practically 
doubled, or more, the capacity of the breweries, 
and the result was an enormous over-competi- 
tion and tremendous increase in the number of 
saloons. The result of that over-competition 
was, as you gentlemen of course have observed, 
in all our large cities, a very much greater num- 
ber of saloons than were needed for the reason- 
able convenience of the people (4, p. 83). 


Secretary Fox, in his address to the United States 
Brewers’ Association, added: 


Out of that over-competition and out of the 
lax municipal methods in some states, the com- 
binational circumstances, the saloon evil, as we 
know it, arose. . . . Saloon conditions in a good 
many parts of the country became notoriously 
bad (4, p. 83). 


The organizer of the Brewers’ Association, Mr. 
Percy Andreae, declared: 


We are handicapped in our local license cam- 
paign by the indefensible character of disrep- 
utable saloons. . . . The trend of our argument 
is that the open saloon is much better than the 
secret speakeasy. Is not this a tacit admission 
that after all it is the lesser of two evils that we 
have to offer? In the long run our efforts to or- 
ganize our friends and educate the liberals will 
go for naught, if we are merely trying to win 
their support of a “necessary evil” (4, p. 362). 


The bootlegger, successor to the saloon-keeper, 
faces the enormous handicap of being a furtive out- 


102 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


law, vending highly questionable and poisonous bev- 
erages for which he must charge a discouragingly 
high price. 

Difficulties of obtaining liquors, and the conse- 
quent high cost, cannot help but be a deterrent upon 
their consumption in quantities. Whisky at ten dol- 
lars a quart is a luxury. When it is considered that, 
in the whole United States, the number of Federal 
personal income tax returns for incomes during 1923 
of $10,000 and over was only 228,267, while the total 
number of returns in all classes was 7,698,321 
(5, p. 14), it becomes apparent that the number of 
persons who can afford the high-priced bootleg 
poison is comparatively small. 

Furthermore, the bootlegger suffers hazards that 
are costly to him. While he is getting many times 
more for his products than they formerly com- 
manded, he is many times more liable to pay a 
heavy fine, or to lose money from the confiscation 
of his stock—if not, indeed, to pay the price of jail. 

The saloon is gone. That is the great incontro- 
vertible fact, directly due to the passage of the 
National Prohibition law. The consequences for 
good of the abolition of the saloon are incalculable 
and grow directly from the rapid change which it 
has produced in lessening an artificial habit of self- 
poisoning that had long tended to hold Western civ- 
ilization down. 


CHAPTER VIII 
ALCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 


Professor Pearl’s Group of “Moderate Drinkers” 

Those who exaggerate the shortcomings of Prohi- 
bition or underrate its benefits consist, for the most 
part, of unlearned people. In general, the scientific 
world is in favor of total abstinence as an ideal and 
Prohibition as a means toward that end. But there 
are a few exceptions. 

Raymond Pearl is Professor of Biometry and 
Vital Statistics, School of Hygiene and Public 
Health, of Johns Hopkins University. The scientific 
standing of that institution is unquestioned. None 
stands higher. I was therefore very much surprised 
to read in a recent study by Dr. Pearl (6, p. 252) of 
the mortality of groups of total abstainers and per- 
sons of different drinking habits, a blunt finding, as 
follows: “At every age up to 85 in the males, and 
to 90 in the females, the moderate drinking group 
exhibits a higher mean age at death than the total 
abstainer group.” The italics are Dr. Pearl’s. 

At first sight this finding seems of startling impor- 
- tance; in fact, it would be of quite priceless value 
to the Wets who in eight states during 1926 have 

103 | 


104 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


instituted, on behalf of so-called moderate drinkers, 
referenda looking to the return of wine and beer. 

But, strangely enough, though he italicizes his 
remarkable findings, Dr. Pearl immediately explains 
that they have no significance! ‘The differences 
between the two classes, he says, “cannot be re- 
garded as significant in comparison with their prob- 
able errors.” This passage, it seems to me, is the 
one which should have been italicized. In the end 
he contents himself with this: 


There appears . . . no evidence whatever 
for the view that the moderate consumption of 
alcohol as a beverage in the slightest degree 
diminishes the expectation of life (6, p. 253). 


In other words, Dr. Pearl’s meager statistics yield no 

conclusions on the subject. But, as we shall see, 

other statistics of far larger numbers do yield results. 
Dr. Pearl’s data do show, however, that the 


heavy drinking group shows definitely in both 
sexes a diminished mean age at death, as com- 
pared with either the total abstainer or the 
moderate and occasional groups (6, p. 253). 


In short, Dr. Pearl confirms well-known conclu- 
sions as to heavy drinkers, but has no dependable 
conclusion as to moderate drinkers to disprove the 
experience of the life insurance companies on both 
sides of the Atlantic. 

But, entirely aside from the scantiness of Dr. 
Pearl’s data (which, as he unobtrusively admits, 


ALCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 105 


destroys of itself any value in his italicized conclu- 
sion) there is another reason why his “moderate 
drinkers” do not die as fast as, from other evidence, 
we know moderate drinkers do die. What Dr. Pearl 
means by “moderate drinkers” and what he means 
by “heavy and steady drinkers” are very different 
from what anybody else means by those terms! 

He has taken a sample of more than 2,000 men 
and women drawn from the working-class popula- 
tion of Baltimore, each at age 20, divided them into 
three classes in respect to drinking habits, and fol- 
lowed each throughout life until death. The work, 
which was supported by the National Tuberculosis 
Association, the Russell Sage Foundation, and the 
Commonwealth Fund, was part of an elaborate 
investigation into the family histories of a group of 
tuberculous persons, and of another group of non- 
tuberculous persons, both sets of histories being 
taken by expert field workers. As alcohol figures 
in the etiology of tuberculosis, the material on indi- 
vidual drinking habits came handy to Dr. Pearl in 
making this extraordinary study of the effects of 
alcohol on the terms of life of the abstainer and 
aleohol-drinking groups. 

But by a statistical perversity which arouses won- 
der, Dr. Pearl deliberately merges the regular mod- 
erate drinkers with his list of heavy and regular 
drinkers. “If any person took an occasional glass 
of beer or wine,” he explains, “he went into the class 
of ‘moderate and occasional drinkers.’” On the 


106 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


other hand, “the person who made it a regular habit 
te take wine or beer with meals, even though the 
amount so taken was never excessive, was placed in 
the next higher class, the ‘heavy or steady 
drinkers’ ” (6, p. 243). 

Had he used the term “moderate” in its usual 
interpretation the members and officers of ‘‘personal 
liberty” leagues, Moderation Leagues, brewers and 
distillers, and campaign orators in national and state 
political organizations would, in all probability, not 
have been able to quote triumphantly Dr. Pearl’s 
italicized statement, “At every age up to 85 in the 
males, and to 90 in the females, the moderate drink- 
ing group exhibits a higher mean age at death than 
the total-abstainer group,’ * while, of course, omit- 
ting his offsetting statement that these results, in 
so small a number of cases, are likely to be acci- 
dental. 

Dr. Pearl’s statistical method is both improper 
and misleading in classifying one of his major 


* Dr. Pearl finds some apology needed for his remarkable classi- 
fication, for he says: “I realize fully that in placing the moderate 
and temperate but steady daily drinker in the ‘heavy’ category 
that I am going contrary to common opinion and the common 
usage of descriptive language. But I believe that the classifica- 
tion here adopted is more nearly scientifically warranted in an 
objective study of the problem than is that based upon common 
opinion” (6, p. 243). Nevertheless, in his conclusion (6, p. 278), 
he says that the weight of evidence indicates that alcoholic con- 
sumption “which in common parlance ts called moderate (the 
precise measure of this amount and frequency probably varying 
to some extent with each individual) does not sensibly shorten 
the mean duration of life or increase the rate of mortality, as 
compared with that enjoyed by total abstainers of alcohol.” 


ALCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 107 


groups, so that his conclusion when quoted apart 
from the context must distort the facts to the gen- 
eral comprehension. 

Dr. Pearl cannot escape the chief responsibility 
for such distortion because (1) he italicizes the mis- 
leading conclusion; but (2) does not italicize his 
statement that the data are too few to make that 
conclusion significant; (3) he uses the term ‘“‘mod- 
erate’ in an unusual and, therefore, misleading 
sense; and (4) in the end, as by a sleight-of-hand 
substitution, he speaks of his (italicized but worth- 
less) conclusion as though it applied to drinkers 
called moderate ‘‘in common parlance.” Is this pre- 
senting the unvarnished truth? 


Inadequacy of Pearl’s Data 

A supplementary article published by Dr. Pearl in 
the British Medical Journal of May 31, 1924, 
apparently admits the insufficiency of the data pre- 
sented in his report and attempts to meet criticism 
with some additional material. The group he pre- 
sents, that of six thousand people divided into sub- 
groups, classified as to alcoholic habits, and still 
further sub-divided into age groups, tapers down to 
very meager statistical data on which to base a life 
table. Dr. Pearl avoids stating the exact number 
of persons in the smaller sub-divisions. It would 
appear that, in some instances, there are less than 
a half dozen! Instead of giving the number of 
persons, Dr. Pearl gives the number of years lived. 


108 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


People not familiar with actuarial methods might 
well suppose that such a table covered an enormous 
amount of data. 

But, apart from the numerical inadequacy of the 
material, it is not selected in a way to make it of 
any value for such a study. Dr. Pearl would dis- 
credit the enormous life insurance experience dealing 
with several million lives and pits against it his 
little handful of people culled from the population 
by a general inquiry which failed to include any 
adequate analysis of the original condition of 
health of the members of the groups. Inasmuch as 
we are dealing with questions of longevity, there is 
a failure to take into consideration the fact that, in 
life insurance groups, the members are, in a general 
sense, homogeneous as to their general condition of 
health; that is, they were so at the time they were 
accepted. In Dr. Pearl’s groups there must be a 
mixture of all sorts and kinds of impaired risks, and 
there is no telling what influence such factors have 
had upon the mortality of the groups studied, 
entirely apart from their alcoholic habits. 

His taking a group of dead people and construct- 
ing a life table on them is contrary to sound life 
insurance principles. 

Finally, he has excluded the group of deaths by 
accidents and adjusted his tables to exclude those 
who subsequently developed heavy drinking habits. 

No reason can be admissible for excluding the 
deaths from accidents. An increased accident rate 


ALCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 109 


has been found in life insurance statistics among 
drinkers as compared to non-drinkers, as one would 
naturally expect. 

Of course, also, increased indulgence is just as 
much a pathological effect of ordinary alcoholic 
indulgence as cirrhosis of the liver would be. One 
might just as reasonably proceed to readjust the 
membership of these groups from year to year by 
excluding those who developed alcoholic excesses. 

Professor Pearl has the trappings of a technical 
expert in presenting his data. His method is admir- 
ably calculated to bully the average physician into 
accepting the results he alleges without question. 
But his imposing super-structure of technique rests 
on a basis of fundamental fallacy and prejudice. 
Scientific method without scientific spirit and reli- 
able and adequate data is a means of beclouding, 
not illuminating, the subject. 

In the book edited by Dr. Starling, to which Dr. 
Pearl contributed, he is constantly placing the 
emphasis in the wrong place and using the wrong 
data. For example, he cites a study by the North- 
western Mutual Life Insurance Company which has 
been superseded by a later study which showed 
definitely results which were exactly contrary to his 
own conclusions! (72). One competent commenta- 
tor, a foremost actuary, declares that he cannot 
imagine how “any man with even a pretense of 
statistical ability could produce such a nonsensical 
- discussion.” 


110 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


In How to Live, a monthly journal of the Life 
Extension Institute, issue of January, 1924, appears 
this comment upon Professor Pearl’s study in the 
book, “The Action of Alcohol on Man”: 

That scientific men will allow their prejudices 
so to impair their sense of proportion in such 
matters is one of the reasons why science, espe- 
cially medical science, is not held in better 
repute by the masses. 


Dr. Evans Corrects Professor Pearl 


The Record of the American Institute of Actu- 
aries, dated June, 1925, contains the address of the 
president of that body, Dr. Percy H. Evans. In 
this address Dr. Evans quotes a statement by Dr. 
Pearl from the American Mercury of February, 
1924, as follows: 


Certainly in the matter of present interest, 
what the insurance companies actually know 
about the effect of alcohol upon mortality can 
by no possibility be held to justify the conclu- 
sions which the public have drawn. 


Dr. Evans is not so sure of this. Pointing 
out that in the latest and most extensively pub- 
lished investigation of insurance results, from the 
angle of the liquor habit, the reader is warned not 
to make too broad inferences “from data based on 
original applications where the subsequent histories 
have not been traced and periodical reclassifications 
made on some significant basis,’ Dr. Evans goes 
on to say: 


ALCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 111 


Let me mention here the results of this inves- 
tigation of mortality under 286,392 policies, 
issued 1885-1900, according to what the appli- 
cants, upon making application, claimed their 
liquor habit to be. The group covered 30,069 
deaths for $86,691,000 of insurance. The “total 
abstainers” showed a mortality of 84.3 per cent 
of that expected; “moderate users,” 97.2 per 
cent; “regular beer-drinkers,”’ 111.3 per cent; 
and “regular spirit-drinkers,” 128.9 per cent of 
the Medico-Actuarial Table of Mortality. A 
later count, covering the issues of 1901-08, 
showed the following percentages of the Ameri- 
can Men Table for the several groups in the 
same order, 2.e., 69.6 per cent, 77.6 per cent, 
91.2 per cent, and 127.3 per cent (52, p. 9). 

Why do applicants for life insurance who 
claim to be abstainers at the time of medical 
examination persistently show the most favor- 
able mortality? Of course, we do not suppose 
they all told the exact truth. We may also 
assume that many of them took to drink later 
on. But it seems as if one of two things must 
be said about this “‘abstainer” group: either 
there is some benefit to longevity in abstinence 
or else we must believe there was just enough, 
and no more, moderate tippling going on in the 
“abstainer”’ class to give the whole group the 
alleged benefits of moderate doses of alcohol 
while the other three groups, including the 
so-called “moderate users,’ were in point of 
fact using alcohol to excess. This whole ques- 
tion of “moderate use” is still unanswered. Mr. 
Emory McClintock said in 1905: “Statistics 
have never yet shown one atom of information 
on that subject, and it is doubtful if they ever 


112 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


can. All that is possible is to argue about it” 
(52, p. 9). 

It is quite true, of course, that life insurance sta- 
tistics of the mortality among the insured, classified 
solely according to their condition at the time they 
became insured, cannot tell us what happens to 
moderate drinkers who stay moderate drinkers. 
Many who were moderate drinkers when first 
insured are certain to become immoderate drinkers 
later, just because the tendency of all habit-forming 
drugs is to influence the appetite they seem to sat- 
isfy. What the statistics do prove is that moderate 
drinkers are bad risks—the risk always including 
that of becoming immoderate drinkers. 

This inclusion of those who increase their imbib- 
ing is as it should be, not only from the standpoint 
of life insurance but also from the standpoint of a 
practical man who wants to know all the risks he 
takes when he begins fooling with such a tricky 
drug. 

The moreracademic question of what happens to 
moderate drinkers who always stay moderate is one 
for the laboratory, rather than for statistics. It is 
discussed in the next chapter. 


Abstainers Live Longer Than Drinkers 
The present question—the mortality among those 
who start off as moderate drinkers whether or not 
they remain so—has been settled by statistics 
beyond all reasonable doubt. The classic investiga- 


ALCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 113 


tion, amply confirmed by many others, is the Med- 
ico-Actuarial Investigation (71), including forty- 
three American life insurance companies and cover- 
ing two million lives. 

This showed that the death rate among policy- 
holders using (when examined) two glasses of beer 
or one glass of whisky daily was 18 per cent above 
the death rate among insured lives generally.* 

In the experience of the United Kingdom Tem- 
perance and General Provident Institution of Lon- 
don, during more than half a century from 1866 to 
1917, the abstainers show an actual mortality of 
65 per cent of that expected, as contrasted with the 
mortality of 90 per cent for non-abstainers. The 
experience from 1883 to 1917 of the Scottish Life 
Assurance Company of Glasgow gives the deaths 
of abstainers at 52 per cent of the number expected, 
and of non-abstainers at 70 per cent. 

These death curves of themselves suggest that 
alcohol is a narcotic poison, a habit-forming drug, 
poisonous as such. This is a foundation fact which 
none of the opponents of Prohibition, not even 
so able an apostle of moderate drinking as Dr. 
Pearl, have succeeded, with all their efforts, in dis- 
crediting. 

*It also showed that those who had a history of past intem- 
perance but were apparently cured at the time they took insur- 
ance suffered a mortality 50 per cent above the average while 
those using more than the “two glasses of beer or one glass of 


-whisky” (yet accepted for insurance and regarded as “moderate 
drinkers”) registered 86 per cent above 


114 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


Alcohol as a Medicine 


Medicinally, the use of alcohol to “stimulate,” in 
the face of all modern scientific discoveries as to its 
“depressing” effect, smacks at once of the pre- 
scientific days when the old-wife and the medicine- 
man ruled the destinies of the community with little 
else than superstition to guide them. 


When I was but a youngster in medicine in 
the late ’eighties, and for generations before my 
day, | 


said Dr. Howard A. Kelly of Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity, 


it was the unreasoning fashion of my profession 
to prescribe some sort of an alcoholic drink as 
“a, tonic” in convalescence, and this evil habit 
to some extent still lingers as our worst inherit- 
ance from our respected fathers. The good 
done about equalled that of pink pills for pale 
people, while the harm done in implanting and 
fostering a deadly habit was incalculable (8, 
p. 26, Sept.-Nov., 1925). 


Dr. Richard C. Cabot, Professor of Clinical Medi- 
cine, Harvard Medical School, says: 


Physicians are using it less and less in the 
treatment of disease, owing to the recognition 
that it is a narcotic and not a stimulant (9, 
Nov. 1, 1925). 

Alcohol is now seldom used in acute illness 
except as a substitute for food in cases where 
previous drinking has made it unwise to with- 
draw, , 


ALCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 115 


according to Dr. Eugene L. Fisk, Medical Director 
of the Life Extension Institute (10, p. 77). 


It seems to me that the field of usefulness 
of alcohol in therapeutics is extremely limited 
and possibly does not exist at all, 

says Dr. Reid Hunt, of the U. S. Public Health 
Service, Washington, D. C. (9, 1-9, 1925). 
It is time alcohol was banished from the 


medical armament; whisky has killed thousands 
where it cured one, 


says Dr. J. N. McCormack, Secretary of the Ken- 
tucky Board of Health and organizer of the Amer- 
ican Medical Association (9, 11-1, 1925). 

In June, 1917, the American Medical Association 
passed the following resolution: 


Whereas we believe that the use of alcohol 
is detrimental to the human economy, and its 
use in therapeutics as a tonic or a stimulant has 
no scientific value; therefore, Be it resolved 
that the American Medical Association is op- 
posed to the use of alcohol as a beverage; and 

Be it further resolved that the use of alcohol 
as a therapeutic agent should be further dis- 
couraged (17, p. 22). 

But during serious influenza epidemics in Ontario, 
in 1917 and 1918, amongst a part of the population 
dissatisfaction was loudly voiced that intoxicating 
liquor was difficult to obtain as a medicine and a 
preventive, according to a report in Medical Science. 
The chief officer of health for the Province, 


116 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


Lieutenant-Colonel McCullough, when asked his 
opinion as to the advisability of increasing the facil- 
ities for securing liquor under the circumstances, 
made the following statement: 


The fact that by the judicious use of several 
remedies on our therapeutic list we can safely 
dispense with alcohol in the practice of medi- 
cine indicates the folly of advising it as a 
“camouflage” for the very serious evils that 
arise from its use as a beverage. 


That his opinion of the therapeutic value of intox- 
icants was shared by the great majority of the med- 
ical profession of the Province is demonstrated by 
the answers of over 500 physicians in reply to a 
questionnaire sent out by The Pioneer at the time 
of the Ontario Referendum. 

The answers were overwhelmingly against the use 
of alcohol as a medicine, and with such statements 
as follows: 


Better stimulants are in constant use. 

Practically do not use it at all now; other 
stimulants give better results. 

During a practice of forty years, I have 
found little use for alcohol in preparations. 

Alcohol has been almost eliminated from the 
best modern practice. 

I have practiced medicine since 1867, but 
have seen little or no use for alcohol and much 
harm. 

Me can do without alcohol absolutely (11, 
p. 43). 


LCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 117 


With the passing of alcohol as a medicine little 
or no justification is left for the use of alcohol inside 
the human body, for any purpose, least of all habit- 
ually. 

Old ideas die hard, and old habits die harder. So 
there will still be a small remnant of physicians for 
some time to come who cling to the old notions and 
there will still be a few scientific students whose 
views are controlled by their appetites. Such is the 
history of all progress. We must wait a long time 
for unanimity. The important point is that rational 
grounds exist for the rapidly growing and now al- 
most universal belief that alcohol is always a life 
shortener and nothing else. 


CHAPTER IX 
ALCOHOL A Poison 


Slowing Down the Human Machine 

Before proceeding further with the demonstra- 
tion that the cutting off of the saloon has decreased 
the mortality and disease due to alcohol, it will help 
to get our bearings if we look at the evidence that 
alcohol is a poison; for this is the basic fact under- 
lying the whole problem. There are numerous in- 
vestigations showing that alcohol when taken either 
in small or large doses slows down the human 
machine. 

Examination of liver, kidneys, brain, and other 
organs of moderate drinkers show specific degenera- 
tive changes in their tissues. 

Thus the formation of anti-bodies in the blood, 
which enable it to resist the infection of disease 
germs, is described by Bastedo in the experiments 
of Muller, Wirgin, and other investigators (12). 

The prolonged administration of small doses of 
alcohol in men (15 cc., equal to a glass and one- 
third of beer) was shown by Laitines to lower the 
vital resistance to typhoid germs (138, pp. 445-6). 

So-called “blood poisoning” is due to a strepto- 

118 


ALCOHOL A POISON 119 


coccus germ. Rubin injected alcohol under the skin 
of rabbits, making them more susceptible to this 
germ. These rabbits also succumbed more quickly 
to the germ of pneumonia (14, pp. 425-44). 

Fillinger and Weinburg, testing the resistance to 
infectious germs of the red blood cells after admin- 
istering champagne to healthy human subjects and 
to dogs and rabbits, found the cells much weakened. 
Weinburg showed that 450 cc. of champagne de- 
stroyed the resistance in 20 per cent of the red cells 
(15); 

It is the function of the white blood cells to 
destroy bacteria. When large doses and continuous 
moderate doses of alcohol were taken, Parkinson 
showed that this function was weakened. 

While alcohol increases the rate of the pulse, it 
lowers the blood pressure and tends to paralyze the 
nerves of the heart and those that control the blood 
vessels. Large doses make this paralysis com- 
plete. This has been proved by a large number 
of investigators including Brooks, Crile, Cabot, 
Dennig, Hindelang, Gruenbaum, Alexandross, and 
others (16). 

Dr. Haven Emerson, formerly Commissioner of 
Health of New York City and now Professor of 
Public Health Administration, Columbia Univer- 
sity, states: 

Alcohol is a protoplasmic poison, like ether 


and chloroform, with slower but more enduring 
effects (18, p. 99). 


120 


PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


Dr. Emerson reminds us also that: 


Conradi showed that there was a diminished 
production of anti-bodies, in cholera, in people 
using alcohol freely, after a dose of protective 
inoculation had been given (18, 4-8, 1916, p. 
Pn 

Pampoukis and Szeckley found unfavorable 
results and a persistence of the virus of rabies 
in subjects under anti-rabic treatment if they 
are users of alcohol. This study extended over 
twenty-five years of administration of Pasteur 
treatment at Budapest (18, 4-8, 1916) that 

Reich noted unmistakable lowering of body 
resistance to disease, indicated by a less effec- 
tive phagocytosis in typhoid in man, and less 
resistance of human red blood cells to pypotonic 
salt solutions in proportion to the use of alco- 
hol (18, 325, 1916, p. 962); that in addition 
to the specific lowering of resistance to infec- 
tion and lowered ability to combat infection 
when once acquired, alcohol plays an undoubted 
contributing part in the acquisition and spread 
of venereal diseases. 

Quensel. found that work and alcohol do not 
belong together, especially when work demands 
wide-awakeness, attention, exactness, and en- 
durance (18, 3-25, 1916, p. 962). 


Neumann (19, p. 94) showed that: 


Alcohol alters the hemoglobin, diminishes 
by one-fourth the capacity of the blood cor- 
puscles to take up oxygen, and produces con- 
gestion in the membrane and cortex of the 
brain. From this there results dilatation of the 


ALCOHOL A POISON 121 


blood vessels, paralysis of the muscular fibers 
of the walls of the vessels, oedema, and finally 
fatty degeneration of the irritated nerve cells. 


Metchnikoff said of alcohol: 


It lowers the resistance of the white cor- 
puscles, which are the natural defenders of the 
body. Although the phagocytes (which defend 
the organism from invasion by infectious 
germs) belong to the most resistant elements 
of our body, yet it is not safe to count on their 
insensibility toward poisons. It is well known 
that persons who indulge too freely in alcohol 
show far less resistance to infectious diseases 
than abstemious individuals (20, p. 25). 


Alcohol a Depressant, Not a Stimulant 


In spite of common observations as to its blurring 
effect on thought and action, the erroneous idea that 
alcohol is a general mental and physical stimulant 
is widespread, and plenty of false propaganda keeps 
it alive. 

As one of the indications of this supposed stim- 
ulation, we have the phenomenon of increased heart 
action. This increase was a matter of special inves- 
tigation by Dodge and Benedict of the Carnegie 
Institution of Washington. The increased heart 
action was found by them to be due to the fact 
that “after alcohol the normal inhibitor tone was 
less completely or less rapidly established.” They 

stated that the evidence seemed to indicate that the 
relative acceleration effected by alcohol was due to a 


122 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


“lessened responsiveness of the cardio-inhibitory 
mechanism” (21, p. 236). That is, it removes the 
brakes. It does not stimulate but lets the heart 
mechanism run without control, with a fast but 
weakened heartbeat. 

The possibility of alcohol depression being a con- 
servative or recuperative process was also investi- 
gated by Dodge and Benedict, and it was found: 


Even if it should prove true that the local 
action of alcohol on the circulation centers dis- 
turbed the normal correlation between meta- 
bolism and the heart-rate, the fact of increased 
heart-rate for a given kind and amount of men- 
tal work absolutely prohibits us from regarding; 
the neuromuscular depression incident to alco- 
hol a a conservative process like sleep (21, p. 
256). 


The paradox of depression from alcohol appearing 
as stimulation, the creation of a delusion, is illus- 
trated by the experience of two bicycle riders on a 
tandem making a long run. Tired and thirsty, they 
stopped for some beer. After taking the “stimulant” 
to “refresh” themselves, they resumed their journey, 
but soon found their machine was going harder. 
Each thought, at first, that the other was shirking. 
Then they thought something had happened to the 
bearings, and stopped again, to make a careful in- 
vestigation. To their surprise, they found the 
tandem still in perfect condition, whereupon it 
dawned upon them that the “sand in the gearings” 


ALCOHOL A POISON 123 


was the “depressant” they had drunk acting as a 
handicap. 

A period of short stimulation following small 
doses of alcohol has been reported in a number of 
small foreign investigations (21, p. 250), and was 
therefore a matter of particular investigation by 
Dodge and Benedict in their experiments. In all 
of their tests, the only ones that showed this short 
period of slight stimulation from alcohol were the 
ones on eye-reaction; they alone consistently showed 
improvement after the small doses of alcohol. 
“Whatever may be the effect in isolated tissue,” the 
authors state: 


our data give clear and consistent indications 
that the apparent alcoholic depression of neuro- 
muscular processes is a genuine phenomenon 
that cannot be reduced to the excitation of 
inhibitory processes; but that, conversely, 
whenever apparent excitation occurs as a result 
of alcohol, it is either demonstrably (pulse-rate, 
reflexes, memory and threshold) or probably 
(eye-reaction) due to a relatively over-balanc- 
ing depression of the controlling and inhibitory 
processes (21, p, 253). 


Beer and Wine as Destroyers of Efficiency 
The extensive beer and wine drinking in Europe 
has resulted in many investigations of the mental 
and physical effect of alcohol in these beverages. 
Various writers have assembled and reviewed the 
data, which are summarized as follows: 


124 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


The influence of alcohol on typesetters working 
at their trade in a printing office was studied in 1896 
by Aschaffenburg. The alcohol he used was in the 
form of Greek wine. The experiment extended over 
four days. The first and third days were observed 
as normal days, no alcohol being given. On the sec- 
ond and fourth days each worker received 35 grams 
(a little more than one ounce) of alcohol, the equiv- 
alent of 3 glasses of 4 per cent beer. 

A comparison of the results of work on normal 
and on alcoholic days showed, in the case of one of 
the workers, no difference. But the remaining three 
showed greater or less retardation of work, amount- 
ing in the most pronounced case to almost 14 per 
cent. As typesetting is paid for by measure, such a 
worker would actually earn 10 per cent less on days 
when he consumed even this small quantity of alco- 
hol (22, pp. 19-20). 

Professor Aschaffenburg stated that the so-called 
moderate drinker, who consumes his bottle of wine 
as a matter of course each day with his dinner— 
and who doubtless would declare that he is never 
under the influence of liquor—is in reality never 
actually sober from one week’s end to another; that 
neither in bodily nor in mental activity is he ever 
up to what should be his normal level (23). 

The famous experiments made by Professor Emil 
Kraepelin, formerly of Heidelberg and later of 
Munich, are variously reported as follows: 


ALCOHOL A POISON 125 


Tests with an amount of alcohol equal to 
that contained in two liters of beer or a half to 
a whole bottle of wine, showed that this amount 
of alcohol had a progressively deleterious effect 
when taken for a number of days (23, p. 11). 

Two or three glasses of 4 per cent beer, or 
half a pint of 10 per cent wine, were found to 
impair the perception and attention needed by 
lookouts, signal men, sentries, engineers, auto- 
mobile drivers, machinists, and others in mili- 
tary and civil life (24, p. 6). 

From 30 to 45 grams of absolute ethyl alco- 
hol, the equivalent of 2 to 4 glasses of beer, 
more or less checked and paralyzed all the men- 
tal functions. The stupor, which resembled 
physical fatigue in its effect, increased with the 
dose of aleohol absorbed, lasting for small quan- 
tities 40 to 50 minutes, and for larger quantities 
1 or 2 hours. In the smaller doses the paralysis 
of the mental functions was preceded by a 
period of activity or acceleration which lasted 
20 to 30 minutes at most (19, p. 94). 

After giving 80 grams of alcohol per day, 
equivalent to 8 glasses of beer, to an individual 
for 12 successive days, the working capacity of 
that individual’s mind was lessened by from 25 
to 40 per cent (22, p. 19). 

Small doses of alcohol facilitated motor dis:. 
charge at first, but subsequently depressed it. 
Large doses depressed both intellectual and mo- 
tor processes from the first. The nature and 
amount of the effects depended on the charac- 
teristics of the individual, and on his condi- 
tion (21, p. 242). 


126 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


Professor Kraepelin stated: 


In the production of alcoholism in Germany, 
beer undoubtedly plays the chief réle. It must 
be conceded that beer is capable of producing 
typical delirium tremens (18, p. 78). 

Alcohol tends to diminish the ability to memorize 
figures, as Dr. A. Smith of the University of Heidel- 
berg shows by elaborate tables (56). 

In an attempt to memorize poetry, Professor 
Vogt of the University of Christiania found that on 
days when he drank one and one-half to three glasses 
of beer it took him 18 per cent longer to learn the 
lines. He reviewed the work six months later and 
found that the lines he had learned on alcohol days 
required more time for re-learning, that they were 
not so-:sharp and clear in his impression, and there- 
fore not so easily recalled (23). 

It was the quantities of alcohol in beer and wine 
(the equivalent of 2 to 2 1/3 glasses of beer, or of 
10 ounces of wine) that Durig and Schnyder found 
diminished muscle-working ability in lifting and 
mountain climbing, and increased fatigue (24, p. 7); 
that “moderate doses of alcohol decreased efficiency 
20 per cent” (25). It was the quantities of alcohol 
in beer and wine (the equivalent of 214 glasses of 
beer or 1 pint of wine) that Lieutenant Boy of the 
Swedish Army found reduced endurance in shooting 
2214 per cent (24, pp. 6-7). 

I know little of whisky and wine-drinkers, 

says Professor Mobius of Leipsic. 


ALCOHOL A POISON 127 


With us, it is beer that ruins the people (18, 
p. 76). 


Professor Gustav von Bunge says: 


No other drink (referring to beer) is so 
insidious. It has been in Germany worse than 
the whisky pest because more apt to lead to 
immoderate drinking (18). 


Dr. Johannes Leonhart, a distinguished scientist, 
writes (58): 


The question concerning alcohol is not 
whether Smith or Jones believes that he can 
take two or three glasses a day without harm, 
but how is it possible to diminish the immense 
amount of injury from it that the whole Ger- 
man people suffer, 


Professor Von Strumpell stated in a lecture at 
Nuremberg: 


Nothing is more erroneous from the physi- 
cian’s standpoint than to think of diminishing 
the destructive effects of alcoholism by substi- 
tuting beer for other alcoholic drinks, or that 
the victims of drink are found only in those 
countries where whisky helps the people of a 
low grade of culture to forget their poverty and 
misery (57). 


Von Strumpell also says: 


Although the percentage of alcohol (beer 2 to 
4 per cent) is not especially high, yet this low 
percentage is counteracted by the great quan- 
tity drunk: 100 cubic centimeters of beer con- 


128 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


tain only 3 grams pure alcohol, but a liter con- 
tains 380 grams. A moderate beer drinker, who 
daily drinks his five liters, thus gets every day 
150 grams of absolute alcohol into his body. 


Evidence of Benedict, Dodge, and Miles 


Aleohol not only works to slow down the human 
machine, but at the same time it deludes its vic- 
tims with the persistent belief that they are being 
sped up and made more efficient. This strengthens 
the grip of the alcoholic habit. 

The influence of alcohol on typewriting efficiency 
and simpler related acts was tested by Dr. Walter 
R. Miles of the Carnegie Institution of Wash- 
ington. All of the typists taking part in the 
experiment were asked to give their impressions con- 
cerning their own work. Typical samples of their 
replies are as follows: “I think I worked faster as a 
result of the medicine.” “I think it (the alcoholic 
drink) helped me to make speed as usual. It helped 
me to get down to business.” 

A study of the actual results of their work did not 
bear our their feelings. The experimenter, Dr. 
Miles, found that 


without exception all of the measurements 

which have been used in these experiments with 

alcohol on typewriting and simpler related proc- 
esses show a positive effect of the alcohol, and 
in each case this is interpreted to be in the 

aay of depression or decreased efficiency 
26). 


ALCOHOL A POISON 129 


A solution of 14 to 22 per cent (and containing 
21 to 42 grams) of alcohol (26, p. 270), averaging 
the first two hours after ingestion, decreased the 
strokes per second 2.6 per cent; increased the errors 
39.3 per cent, and increased the illegibility 55 per 
cent. 

Repetition of the alcoholic dose was found to 
make the toxic influence more prominent. This, the 
author believes, suggests that 


the alcohol effect usually found in the labora- 
tory is probably not so large as exists outside 
the laboratory (26, p. 110). 


An investigation by Dodge and Benedict of the 
psychological effect of alcohol in 30 cc. doses, the 
equivalent of 3 glasses of beer, and 45 cc. doses 
(21, p. 80), the equivalent of 4 glasses of beer, 
showed the most marked effect in the knee-jerk, 
where alcohol increased the average latent time 10 
per cent, and decreased the average extent of mus- 
cle-thickening 46 per cent (21, p. 243). 

This extreme effect made it impracticable to 
measure the knee-jerk with the larger dose. 

The second largest effect was on the eye-wink, 
which showed an average increased latency of 7 per 
cent, and a decreased extent of movement of 19 per 
cent. 

The third largest change was produced in the 
sensory threshold for electrical stimulation. The 
threshold was raised an average of 14 per cent. 


130 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


Fourth in the extent of change was the effect on 
coordinated movements, as seen in the speed of the 
eye-movements, which averaged 11 per cent slower 
under alcohol. 

A close fifth was the speed of reciprocal stimula- 
tion of nerves in the finger, which was decreased by 
an average of 9 per cent. 

Sixth and seventh in the list were the changes in 
the reaction time of the eye and speech organs, and 
increase in the latent time of 5 and 38 per cent re- 
spectively. 

Finally, the authors state, “there was practically 
no change at all in the memory.” Their memory 
experiments did not, however, include the larger 
dose of alcohol. It was considered by the authors 
a noteworthy fact that 5 of the 6 processes in which 
there were comparable data showed a greater aver- 
age effect from the larger dose (21, p. 245). 

While different subjects vary widely in the effect 
of alcohol on the memory process as measured by 
our technique, Dodge and Benedict say: 


‘he total results show no predominant tend- 
ency of alcohol on the main group of subjects. 
As far as our measurements go, rote memory 
(primary retention) is neither better nor worse 
after small doses of alcohol. 

It is interesting to note that the most pro- 
nounced improvement of memory after alcohol 
was found with Subject VI, who frequently 
differed notably from the group in other experi- 
ments. Under ordinary circumstances, he was 


ALCOHOL A POISON 131 


the most easily confused of the group. He was 
particularly liable to become disturbed and to 
get “rattled,” as he put it. The most pro- 
nounced decrease of capacity after alcohol was 
shown by Subject VII, who depended least on 
simple perseveration and most on quickness in 
forming artificial associations to memorize 
series. It is not impossible that the same depres- 
sion of the capacity for making new associations 
that decreased the effectiveness of Subject VII 
may have relieved Subject VI from intercur- 
rent mental disturbances (21, p. 183). 


Other Evidence 


Frankfurther found typewriting errors enormously 
increased by alcohol, while the speed was occasion- 
ally increased. He described his experience by 
saying: 

I had the feeling that the fingers ran faster 
than I could find the right spot for the stroke. 
I often struck keys against my will, so that I 
must voluntarily inhibit the movements in 
order not to make a mistake at every letter 
(2a orizoe). 

Experiments in typewriting were also made by 
Rivers (28, pp. 96-98) with doses of 20 cc. and 
40 ce. of alcohol, equivalent to the alcohol in two 
to four glasses of beer. The noticed errors were 
found to be fairly constant, and gave no indication 
of alcohol effect. The unnoticed and uncorrected 
errors showed an unmistakable tendency to increase 
with the rapidity of the work, but, taking this in- 


132 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


creased rapidity into account, they showed no indi- 
cation of alcohol effect. 

Of 588 Viennese school children investigated by 
E. Bayer (59, quoted in 28, p. 11), a school director 
of Vienna, as to their habits with respect to alcohol, 
it was found that. only 184 were “‘abstainers.” With 
a scholarship classification of “good,” “fair,” and 
“poor” 42 per cent of this group of “abstainers” 
were classified as “good,” 49 per cent of them as 
“fair,” and 9 per cent as “poor.” 

In a group of 164 who “drank occasionally,” only 
34 per cent were classified as “good,” whereas 57 
per cent were classified as “fair,” and 9 per cent 
as “poor.” In a group of 219 who “drank once a 
day,” 28 per cent were classified as “good,” 58 per 
cent as “fair,” and 14 per cent as “poor.” In a 
group of 71 who “drank twice a day,” 25 per cent 
were classified as “good,” 58 per cent as “fair,” and 
18 per cent as “poor.” The investigation showed, 
therefore, that good marks fell off and poor marks 
increased as the wine or beer drinking increased (23, 
pp. 9-12). . 

About four thousand children in Brescia, Italy, 
were studied by Schiavi (60, quoted in 23, p. 12) 
as to their use of alcohol and its relation to scholar- 
ship. More than two thousand of the children 
“drank wine daily.” Of these the percentage classi- 
fied as “poor” in scholarship was ten times as great 
as in a group of 462 “abstainers.” Only a little more 
than a quarter of the drinking group stood in the 


— ae * 


ALCOHOL A POISON 133 


“good” class, whereas nearly half of the “abstainers’”’ 
were so Classified (23, p. 12). 


Alcohol as a Habit Former 


The treachery of alcohol in its habit-forming 
action, its development of an “imperious need,” is 
also described by Dr. Héricourt, as follows: 


Alcoholism is not one invariable form of in- 
toxication; it comprises at least three intoxica- 
tions, which present certain slight points of 
difference: The intoxication by alcohol prop- 
erly so-called, or ethylism; intoxication by wine, 
or oenolism; and intoxication by beverages con- 
taining various essences, of which a type is 
absinthe. 

The second period of ethylism is character- 
ized by an imperious need of alcohol. It is 
then that the French proverb, “He who has 
drunk will drink,” becomes strictly accurate. 
In the third period the alcoholic is character- 
ized by his general malnutrition and sottish 
degradation (17). 


Habit-formation is thus presented in an extreme 
aspect, but a lesser degree of this “imperious need” 
is characteristic of almost every aspect of alcoholic 
action. Dr. Alexander Lambert, one of our leading 
authorities on drug addiction, says of alcohol: 


The habit-forming qualities are purely psy- 
chologic. Men who take alcohol habitually 
take it for the purpose of relieving the strains 
of life, if in only a minor degree, when weary 


134 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


or tired, or emotionally on edge. It is taken 


habitually to dodge the realities of existence. 


On the habit-forming tendencies of alcohol, Dr. 
Eugene L. Fisk states: 


The very clamor that is being raised and the 
widespread patronage of the bootlegger are suf- 
ficient proof that the use of alcohol has a grip 
as a habit on a considerable number of those 
who have used it in the past. Men will not 
pay the high prices and take the risk of indul- 
gence unless they are impelled by what we may 
justly interpret technically as the expression of 
an established habit that is difficult to break. 
The vogue of the Keeley Cure at one time, and 
the very existence of cures for alcohol, show 
that numberless people have admitted them- 
selves to be in the grip of the alcohol habit and 
have had to seek medical relief to overcome it. 


Dr. Haven Emerson says of alcoholic habit-forma- 
tion: 


If there is a criterion that we could apply 
to distinguish habit-forming from non-habit- 
forming drugs, I should think it was the 
strength of the longing or desire to repeat the 
dose and to continue its use regardless of any 
proved benefit or in the face of obvious evidence 
of damage. 


From these authoritative statements, it would 
seem that “the appetite for drink,” which Senator 
William Cabell Bruce, in opposing Prohibition, 
claims has been “one of the primal impulses of the 
great mass of human beings ever since Jesus at Cana 


ALCOHOL A POISON 135 


manifested forth His glory” (1, p. 11), is on the 
contrary an unfortunate drug craving that has been 
kept alive from generation to generation by the con- 
tinuance of the sale of the kind of stronger alcoholic 
drink that Senator Bruce now believes should be 
made legal. 

We may conclude that alcohol has no place, by 
nature, in our human physiology. No animal other 
than man uses it habitually, even ‘in moderation,” 
so called. And man himself came to use it as a 
late perversion of civilization, just as he came to 
use other habit-forming drugs, such as opium in 
China or hasheesh in Turkey. The craving for all 
such drugs is not natural but acquired, although, 
when once acquired, it is difficult to shake off. The 
“moderate” user naturally resents being told the 
truth about his indulgence. He “rationalizes” his 
conduct and finds all sorts of “reasons” to justify 
himself. Such effort at self-justification explains 
the major part of the ingenious arguments and 
statistics to prove that “moderate” drinking is 
harmless. 

For the old idea of temperance as an ideal has 
fled as a mist before the light of science. The physi- 
ological or biological ideal to-day is not temperance, 
but total abstinence. So-called moderate drink- 
ing merely means moderate intoxication. A mild 
drinker denies that he is drunk, if he does not stag- 
ger. But a man who has drunk one glass of beer 
~ is one-glass-of-beer drunk. 

Prohibition rests on a solid foundation, therefore, 


136 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


in that it has prohibited an insidious habit-forming 
enemy from implanting in the breast of future mil- 
lions a drug craving. 

Whatever degree of power alcohol still possesses 
is kept alive chiefly by the inertia of old traditions; 
by the assumption that so prevalent a practice must 
have virtues; by the fear of individuals to break 
away from custom, and by the well-known difficulty 
of emancipating one’s self from any drug habit. 


CHAPTER X 
Tue Hycienic Goop 


Lord D’Abernon’s Data 


What has been said of alcohol as a narcotic poi- 
son, as a habit-forming drug, and as a deceptive 
pseudo-stimulant, bears out from scientific testi- 
mony the records of excess deaths from alcohol which 
have been charted from the life insurance tables. 
Alcoholism not only increases mortality, but acci- 
dents, and disease, both physical and mental. Con- 
sequently, effective Prohibition may be expected 
to decrease general mortality, accidents and disease, 
and to increase efficiency. 

As we have seen, many men whose mortality was 
recorded in the insurance mortality tables have 
called themselves, and they would have been called, 
moderate drinkers. They were in no sense habitual 
drunkards, and yet the facts show that the group 
representing the most moderate drinkers recorded a 
mortality of 18 per cent above the average. 

The charts that have already indicated decreased 
arrests for drunkenness throughout the United 
States, in the wet areas and in the dry areas under 
National Prohibition, and even in the wet strong- 

137 


138 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


holds of the great cities like New York, have already 
proved that Prohibition has markedly reduced this 
habit of self-poisoning among the people. The 
charts that are to follow prove the same thing in 
terms of reduced death and disease. 

There is reason to believe that the tendency to 
excessive drinking is more characteristic of certain 
types of people than of others.* But this fact does 
not preclude environmental control of alcoholism. 
Physicians of the type of Dr. Charles L. Dana and 
Dr. Lewellys F. Barker, members of the Moderation 
League, before the war earnestly stressed the tem- 
peramental and personal side of alcoholism, saying 
that individuals of ill-balanced minds could hardly 
be controlled by any restrictions of the liquor traffic, 
as such. Instead, they felt that these must be 
treated individually. 

But now the records of reduced disease and death 
from alcoholism, gathered in the registration area 
of the United States, are available for the first six 
years of National Prohibition. And the experience 
of the British Central Board of Control of the Liquor 
Traffic during the period of limited Prohibition in 
the war years of 1913-17, affords convincing data. 
A typical instance of this experience is shown in 


* This fact has been used as a eugenic argument against Pro- 
hibition. The work of Karl Pearson, Dr. Stockard, and Dr. 
Pearl indicates that alcohol is a selective agent for killing off 
the unfit, while leaving the fit relatively unharmed. The idea 
is especially applied to alcoholized parents affecting the germ 
plasm. This is the old argument, in a new and improved form, 
that alcohol is a good fool-killer. 


THE HYGIENIC GOOD 139 


the paper of Lord D’Abernon, President of the 
British Board of Control, which appeared in the 
Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, November 29, 
1918, under the title, “Rival Theories of the Causes 
of Drunkenness.” 

Incidentally, Lord D’Abernon calls attention to 
the terrible death toll among those engaged in the 
liquor traffic, especially its dispensers at retail, com- 
paring it to the rate prevailing among the fever 
swamps of the tropics, so that no insurance office 
would accept such risks save at special rates. 


Decreased Female Deaths from Alcoholism 
In further support of the efficacy of environ- 
mental control, Lord D’Abernon cited the statistics 
illustrated in the chart of deaths of women from 
-aleoholism in England and Wales during 1913 to 
1917, inclusive. He confined the figures to women 
because it had been held: 


that inebriety in women is peculiarly intract- 
able, and the persistent recidivism of the female 
drunkard, is, in fact, one of the stock argu- 
ments in support of the temperamental theory. 
During the period of war control of the liquor 
trafic in England and Wales, drunkenness in 
women, as compared with the pre-war year 1913, 
fell 60.6 per cent; their mortality from alcoholism 
and from cirrhosis of the liver decreased by 69.1 
- per cent and 51.5 per cent, respectively; female 
cases of delirium tremens went down by 79 per cent; 


140 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


and deaths from suffocation in infancy—notoriously 
a result of maternal intemperance—diminished by 
42.6 per cent.* 

These notable reductions in five years in cases of 
females were not of casual drinkers but of the 
“steadily continued excess of the confirmed drunk- 
ard.” Lord D’Abernon concludes that it supports 
the view that men and women become drunk chiefly 
“in the absence of reasonable facilities for avoiding 
it and reasonable guidance as to how it can be 
avoided.” 


Lower Death Rates in United States 


The declining death rates computed for the entire 
registration area of the United States; for the group 
of former wet states; for Connecticut, which rejected 
the Eighteenth Amendment; for New York State, 
which repealed in 1923 its own enforcement act in 
cooperation with the Federal government, and for 
New York City—accounted generally as the wettest 
and wickedest of cities—parallel the British experi- 
ence of war-time restriction. These at least suggest 
that the sneer, ‘You can’t make people sober by 
law,” is without adequate foundation in fact. 

Yet cavillers will point to the increase of alcoholic 
deaths or arrests in the second, third, and fourth 


*The National Bureau of Child Welfare, U.S., states that 
suffocation in infancy from this cause (“overlaying” the child by 
the mother, while drunk) is unknown in the United States—which 
affords another indication of the environmental character of the 
drink habit among women. 


THE HYGIENIC GOOD 141 


years of Prohibition. True, these betrayed an in- 
tolerable situation which enforcement, during 1924 
and 1925, has progressively remedied. It was to be 
expected that, after the first year of the outlawry 
of the liquor traffic, the illicit dealers would become 
skilled in circumventing the law. The improved 
measures of Federal and local enforcement already 
recited account for the bettered records, under Na- 
tional Prohibition, as to criminality, disease, and 
death. But it should be remembered that the curves 
of disease and death lag from one to two years be- 
hind the reduced records of arrests, which form the 
more sensitive index of enforcement. 

The mortality of alcohol users in general is greater 
than that of abstainers at practically every age of 
life. Few of these people die of actual alcoholism, 
but alcohol tends to increase the death rate from 
every cause by lowering the resistance of the body, 
as Metchnikoff said. 

The death rate from all causes in the United 
States declined over 10 per cent following Prohibi- 
tion. The death rate among industrial insurance 
policyholders, especially, has declined. Of course, 
it must be recognized that many other causes be- 
sides Prohibition have contributed to these results. 
But the drop is sufficient, even were there no other 
proof, to suggest that reduced alcohol played an 
important part. 

The Census figures are not up to date. Some of 
them end in 1923. The figures for New York City 


142 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


cover 1924, and agree usually in thelr movements 
with the Census figures, so far as these extend. Kven 
in New York City the official death rates of the 
Board of Health show that the highest death rate 
since Prohibition is lower by nearly 10 per cent 
than the lowest death rate prior to Prohibition. The 
death rate in 1924 was 11.6 per 1,000. The average, 
for the five years since Prohibition, is 11.8, as against 
15.0 for the five years prior to Prohibition, or more 
than 25 per cent better. Figures of the Metropoli- 
tan Life Insurance Company show a death rate of 
8.5 per 1,000 among industrial policyholders in 
1925. This is the lowest rate on record for the 
company (47). 


Fewer Deaths from Alcoholism at Bellevue 

At the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Sub- 
committee in Washington in 1926, Dr. Haven Emer- 
son presented charts showing the trend of mortality 
in diseases directly or indirectly related to the use 
of alcohol. Deaths from cirrhosis of the liver treated 
by Bellevue and Allied Hospitals, which handle most 
alcohol cases in New York City, went to a low point 
in 1917, the first year of the war, descended still 
lower in 1921, but then rose to 1925. In 1911 the rate 
stood at 21.7 per 100,000; in 1918 it went down to 
8.0; in 1921, to 6.5, and from 1922 to 1925 it rose 
again to 6.7 per 100,000 (1, p. 785). 

Chronic nephritis and Bright’s disease, the totals 
of which are largely affected by alcoholism, 


THE HYGIENIC GOOD 143 


decreased in these great hospitals during the period 
when the world was experiencing the most serious 
attack of influenza on record; receding from 110 per 
100,000 in 1917 to 76 in 1921, and then to 66.5 per 
100,000 in the year 1925. A third chart presented 
by Dr. Emerson recorded a like decrease in the 
death rate from tuberculosis treated in Bellevue. 
This, he said, reflected an economic change for the 
better; he thought that the addition of from 5 to 
10 per cent in personal incomes due to going with- 
out alcohol was reflected in improved housing, cloth- 
ing and food, thus fortifying the wage-earners’ fam- 
ilies against this disease. A fourth chart of deaths 
from alcoholism at Bellevue Hospital recorded de- 
creases from 327.5 in 1915-16 to 26.5 in 1921-2, when 
the record rose again to 250 in 1925. Dr. Emerson 
testified that this indicated what might be expected, 
and what actually occurred, in the saving of lives 
when alcohol was comparatively inaccessible, and 
that, with the increasing inefficiency of enforcement 
in New York, the death figures responded by in- 
crease. The testimony of charwomen, truck drivers, 
and others admitted to the hospital suffering from 
acute alcoholism, first to the effect that liquor was 
hard to get and after the repeal of the Mullen- 
Gage law that it became much easier to get, revealed 
the consequences of “lifting the lid.’ Dr. Emer- 
son said: 


My profession is the study of the causes of 
preventable diseases and how they may be pre- 







g 


‘+ GAIN SINCE PROHIBITIONZ 


© 
=) 
s 





PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIEITION LEVEL 
rs) 
=) 


Deaths per million population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (55) 
444-505, /5 3) VESR OS ace Lao sie Cocmnr ee 9 LT). 30° Soares 
S87 O1 Th CG Lib e6ie/ Shee leL lomo cok 16 3k eke Maa ot" 71 


29. UNUSUAL SAVING OF HUMAN LIVES THROUGH PROHIBITION 
in the former Wet States 


Err hing: made from data furnished by the United States Bureau of the 
Census. 


This chart shows the benefits which can be attributed to National Prohibition 
more clearly than any other chart, because the states already dry before 
National Prohibition are not included. It is seen that the death-rate from 
acute and chronic alcoholism fell in 1920 to less than 16% of what it had 
been before Prohibition. Then, as the reaction came, after the inauguration of 
National Prohibition and also the toxicity of bootleg liquors rose, the death- 
rate among Pre-prohibition addicts rose with it, so as to bring the death- 
rate up to nearly three fourths of the Pre-prohibition Level. As this class of 
drunkards disappears, the death-rate from alcoholism seems likely to fall again 
and to become almost negligible. For the peak seems to have been reached 
Jn this secondary reaction in 1928-24. The dark area on the chart represents 
a saving of thousands of human lives. 


BO0000S 





MMMM) 
GAIN SINCE PROHIBITION 


Percent 
$ 


POLS PLL ar La ere ee he tet Re Pe ee ee te had 


1912 1913 






1923 1924 


Number of Deaths 
2626 2625 2921 3476 3021 2714 3814 3601 2145 1337 873 1573 2444 3112 3098 


Deaths per million population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (52) 
Cem esr es COUN OOM ALO ST Ob Bi SI MMIE ii 10618. 26) 4 88 33 
106 92 102 115 96 85 110 100 52 31 #19 35 50 63 #68 
es SasesssseseaessnssSSGieoaill 


30. DEATHS DUE TO ALCOHOLISM ALMOST ELIMINATED Im 1920 
in the United States (Registration Area) 


(Computations made from data furnished by the United States Bureau of the 
Census.) 


number of deaths was little more than one half of the average number between 
1910 and 1916, and the period between 1920 and 1924 shows a drop of 52% 
as compared with Pre-prohibition mortality. The peak of the reaction has 
apparently passed, and mortality will probably again decline. This peak wag 





GAIN SINCE PROHIBITIONZ 


Percent 


vena 





oes a 6 6 Og ooo ee 0% 


7 eee 
DOC 
DOCAAIO OO 


14 1915 1916 ‘1917 1918 191 


Number of Deaths 
S676 0° 915. 1047:60 27S "106" 126684 2one eee 


S$ 28 657 68 
Deaths per million population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (71) 
Py 66 WNT DASE y PES Pa T er Rate OG un fe he 1 eae nd, oe 
109 93 108 122 69 81 116 136 74 25 


z 1910 1911 1912 1913 19 


19 389, 42 
14 #23 27 5&5 659 


31. DEATHS DUE TO ALCOHOLISM MUCH REDUCED 
in Connecticut 


OAT ns made from data furnished by the United States Bureau of the 
ensus.) 


What Prohibition has done for an avowedly “wet” state is shown by the mortality 
statistics of Connecticut. The number of deaths due to acute and chronic 
alcoholism between 1920 and 1924 is only 36% of the number between 1910 
and 1916. The accelerated death-rate among Pre-prohibition addicts was appar- 
ently near its peak in 1924 and was even then 40 per cent below the Pre-pro- 
hibition Level. The dark area represents a saving of hundreds of human livas 
as a result of Prohibition. 






100. f 2 , 2 ee Yj Wj; WW WWW Ms, 


90- .GAIN SINCE PROHIBITIONZ 





Percent 


1910 1911 “T912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917, 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 
Number of Deaths 
699 582 575 698 572 508 811 640 3804 210 123 164 809 409 6569 


Deaths per million population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (64.3) 
COmMDIMEO IME ote OOo a Sou sO4 rr oO N20 MLZ a Lb 29  F4Srtbe 
103 89 95 114 92 81 128 100 47 #4=3i1 19 23 45 67 #81 


32. DEATHS DUE TO ALCOHOLISM GREATLY REDUCED 
in New York State 


eee eons made from data furnished by the United States Bureau of the 
ensus. 


Deaths due to acute and chronic alcoholism fell from an average of 64 deaths 
per million population in the period 1910-1916, to an average of 30 per million 
population during the period 1920-1924, representing a decrease of about 53 
per cent. The dark area represents a saving of thousands of human lives as a 
result of Prohibition. The rapid increase since the agitation resulting in the 
repeal of New York’s enforcement law seems significant. 





GA de Ld Udldldldldddddy 





1910 1911 1912 1913 ° 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 i922 1923 1924 1925 


Number of Deaths 
621 6386 570 646 660 562 687 560 252 176 98 119 274 429 5618 682 


Deaths per million population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (127) ; 
130:°.181 (186° 228" 1285106 129 “104° 4682) 01TS 21246) ieee 
102 103 106 101 101 84 102 82 36 25 18 17 S36 56 66 #£«86 


383. DEATHS DUE TO ALCOHOLISM MUCH REDUCED 
in New York City 


(Computations made from data obtained from records of the Board of Health, N. Y. C.) 


In spite of the repeal of the Mullen-Gage law and in spite of the greater poisoning 
power of bootleg liquor, the deaths from acute and chronic alcoholism are held below 
the Pre-prohibition level. With the elimination by death of the confirmed drunkard 
it is reasonable to expect that the deaths due to this evil will be reduced again in the 
Hess Aer a dark area on the chart shows that hundreds of lives have been saved by 
Prohibition 


a 











- 
o 
? 


Ui, GAIN SINCE PROHIBITION § 


e998 3 


r) 
? 


50-}: 


PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 


® i910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 
Number of Deaths 
6352 7392 7204 7537 7645 7521 7886 7641 7548 6564 6102 64583 9854 6916 7220 


Deaths per million population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (128) 
USS) UG ee SNA EY a Pasi geet Ue RSI ss CO 9 Tse a Pg ar ds LUA Ge Dy ASE Gf 
104 106 102 101 98 95 93 86 74 62 55 58 59 5&6 57 


24. TWO FIFTHS OF DEATHS FROM CIRRHOSIS OF THE LIVES 
ELIMINATED 
in the United States (Registration Area) 


(Computed from data from the U. 8. Bureau ‘of the Census.) 


Results of Prohibition have been immediately evident in the reduction of the 
death-rate from cirrhosis of the liver by more than forty per cent, throughout 
the United States. The consistent and regular levels of this curve before 
and after Prohibition make the change more significant, 





YVYyyyyvV7 


GAIN SINCE Lidl, 


PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
a 
° 


eoeeee 
. . 
Be a KAA AL I LS 


ol : ; rie) 
: 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1933 1924 


Number of Deaths 
161 165 143 145 168 144 150 144 148 127 94 99 110 110 8 


Deaths per million population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (129) 
144 4s ISA LST IST VLG Tee Loe 10 eos Be T0.> 762 TGR ee 
112 112 95 94 106 89 91 285 23 72 54 59 58 46 


eeees ee 


35. DEATHS FROM CIRRHOSIS OF THE LIVER FALL EY MORE 
THAN HALF 
in Connecticut 


ed made from data furnished by the United States Bureau of the 
ensus. 


Connecticut, the typical ‘“‘wet’’ state before Prohibition shows the deaths due to 
cirrhosis of the liver reduced by more than half from the pre-war level. Con- 
necticut is “‘game’’; she rejected the Highteenth Amendment, but, when adopted, 
aoe ree to enforce it by state law. One result is this notable saving of 
uman lives. 


—— 


PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 





IN SINCE PROHIBITION 


: Vea Wy yy yyy LEV Lil 


ry "e's : y Se eet Ps > 3 
“ 1910 i911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 


Number of Deaths 
1661 1689 1559 1608 1623 1534 1610 1449 1180 9385 872 956 997 912 1028 


Deaths per million population 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (169) 
182.5182,°0166..169) 168.157 162° 144116 )91° 83 90 93. 84 94 
108 108 98 100 99 93 96 85 69 54 49 53 55 50 56 


36. DEATHS FROM CIRRHOSIS OF THE LIVER CUT ALMOST 
ONE HA ; 


LE 
in New York State 


Na Aids ti made from data furnished by the United States Bureau of the 
ensus.) 


Despite its reputation as a “wet” state, New York has benefited under Federal 
Prohibition (and without a state enforcement law) in the reduction of deaths 
from this disease, which is heavily affected by the alcohol habit. Nearly half 
of the deaths formerly attributed to ‘‘hobnail’ liver have been prevented during 
the period of National Prohibition, saving thousands of lives. 


152 


PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


vented, and this was the first practical evidence 
we have ever had of the astounding effect of 
making alcohol relatively inaccessible, on the 
mortality of the country. 


Death Rates of Liquor Dealers 


Eugene L. Fisk, M.D., publishes in his book on 
“Alcohol, Its Relation to Human Efficiency and 
Longevity,” (10, p. 33) the mortality figures of 43 
life insurance companies in occupations where alco- 
cohol figured as a hazard, with this comment: 


These figures indicate that saloon-keepers 
have a death rate higher than that of under- 
ground mine foremen; that brewery foremen, 
malsters, and the like have a death rate higher 
than electric linesmen, glassworkers, city fire- 
men (laddermen, pipemen, hosemen), metal 
grinders or hot-iron workers, although there is 
nothing in the brewery or saloon business per sé 
that is at all hazardous or unhealthful, aside 
from the possible temptation to drink and its 
collateral hazards. Proprietors of distilleries 
are obviously not so directly exposed to tempta- 
tion or to other adverse influences that obtain 
in the retail liquor trade; this accounts for the 
favorable mortality. 

Among hotel-keepers tending bar the death 
rate from cirrhosis of the liver was six times 
the normal; from diabetes, three times the nor- 
mal; from cerebral hemorrhage or apoplexy, 
nearly twice the normal; from organic dis- 
eases of the heart, nearly twice the normal; 
from Bright’s disease, nearly three times the 


—~— 


THE HYGIENIC GOOD 153 


normal; from pneumonia, nearly twice the 
normal. 

For brewery officials insuring under 45, the 
death rate from cancer and other malignant 
tumors, cerebral hemorrhage and apoplexy, or- 
ganic diseases of the heart, pneumonia, and 
Bright’s disease, among the proprietors, man- 
agers, and superintendents is about twice the 
normal, and from cirrhosis of the liver three 
times the normal. The death rate from suicide 
is nearly. twice the normal. 


Prohibition Decreases Sickness 

Not only the death rates but the amount of sick- 
ness reflect the benefits of Prohibition. For in- 
stance, according to the New York State Hospital 
Commission Reports, the alcoholic insanity in the 
hospitals of that state shows, since Prohibition, no 
rate so high as the lowest rate prior to 1918, with 
one slight exception—5.7 in 1925, as against 5.6 in 
1915. The average since Prohibition has been 3.8 
as against 6.1 for the corresponding period before 
Prohibition. In Connecticut, the decrease in alco- 
holic insanity during Prohibition, as noted by Pro- 
fessor Farnam, has been considered elsewhere. 

In concluding this chapter, I would summarize 
by saying that Prohibition is primarily in the inter- 
est of Public Health. It represents the greatest 
hygienic experiment in history and one of the most 
successful. 






OTL 


GAIN SINCE PROHIBITION 





PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
oa 
—) 


rere 


"1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 


Per cent of First Admissions to Hospitals 
and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Tevet (8.4) 
10 10 8 7 7 te 5 4 3 3 4 5 5 6 
119 119 95 83 83 8 60 48 S86 36 48 60 60 71 





37. ALCOHOLIC INSANITY DECREASES SINCE PROHIBITION 
in states formerly wet 


(Computations made from data furnished by the hospitals of the states.) 


Alcoholic psychoses, including many forms of insanity affected by alcohol, 
followed the same course as the diminished mortality from acute and chronic 
alcoholism, in that there has first been a very pronounced decline with the 
advent of Prohibition, and a gradual secondary reaction. This smaller excess 
of insanity due to alcoholism is probably the result of increased toxicity of 
bootleg liquor, culminating in a recrudescence of mental disease among addicts, 





8 


Mj Lid Vdd 





© 
° 





© 
2 


a 
° 


a 
ie 


50- 


40- 


30- 


PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 


20. 


10- 


“912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921. 1922 1923 1924 1925 


Per cent of First Admissions to Hospitals 
and per cents of the Ee AT Level (18) 
19 18 alee 18 16 13 9 9 9 ¥¢ tf 8 
106 100 95 100 98 72 He 50 ao 50 50 39 39 44 


388. ALCOHOLIC INSANITY REDUCED BY MORE THAN HALF 
in Connecticut 


(Computations made from data furnished by the State Hospitals.) 


In the typically “wet’’ state of Connecticut, which has in good faith passed 
an enforcement act although it voted in opposition to the Highteenth Amend- 
ment, the curve of alcoholic insanity falls lower than in the other formerly 
wet states, and shows further evidence of continued decline. 


CHAPTER XI 
THe Economic Goop 


Efficiency Increased Under Prohibition 

Throughout my exposition I have freely admitted 
that the present situation of imperfect enforcement 
of the National Prohibition law is intolerable and 
should be improved, especially where, as in some 
of the large cities and states of the East, local 
cooperation with the Federal authorities is withheld. 
But I have, I think, shown conclusively that, even 
in these wettest districts of the nation, a remarkable 
change has taken place in the abatement of the 
liquor habit, especially among the youth, so that 
even in the city of New York while the army of con- 
firmed drunkards has dwindled, the court records 
show that the new recruits have dwindled much 
faster. I have analyzed the exaggerations of the 
main and minor exhibits produced in statistical form 
by the research director of the Moderation League, 
and corrected their distorted pictures, showing that 
conditions as set forth therein are not so bad as is 
represented. Further, I have examined the records 
of the good accomplished under Prohibition in terms 

15@ 


THE ECONOMIC GOOD 157 


of bodily welfare, and presented them in graphic 
form. The next step is to bring out the facts of 
economic good under Prohibition. 

Since scientific research has shown that alcoholic 
beverages slow down the human machine, and since 
the human machine is the most important machine 
in industry, we should expect the use of alcoholic 
beverages to slow down industry, and we should 
expect Prohibition, if enforced, to speed up indus- 
try. The experiments already cited show, for in- 
stance, that the equivalent of two to four glasses 
of beer a day will impair the work done in type- 
setting by 8 per cent, increase the time required for 
heavy mountain marches 22 per cent, and impair 
accuracy of shooting under severe army tests 30 per 
cent, and that the capacity for mental work was 
lessened by from 25 to 40 per cent by the equivalent 
of six to eight glasses of beer a day. These and 
about a dozen other similar figures of impaired 
efficiency from small doses of alcohol have been 
described in Chapter IX. 

Assuming the total alcohol used in the United 
States before Prohibition to be consumed uniformly 
among its families, and assuming, as in the type- 
setting experiment (the minimum of the above 
figures), that each daily glass of beer reduces pro- 
ductivity 2 to 4 per cent, it follows that the produc- 
tivity of labor would be increased from 10 to 20 
per cent by effective Prohibition. But if, as is the 


158 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


fact. the consumption is unequally distributed, the 
impairment will, of course, be greater. That is, five 
glasses of beer consumed by one person will produce 
more impairment than one glass apiece when con- 
sumed by five persons. Therefore a 10 per cent 
increase in productivity is a safe minimum. 

According to Ernest Gordon (29), in Russia, tex- 
tile mills increased productivity 8 per cent after 
vodka prohibition—this in spite of the fact that in 
textile mills the pace is almost rigidly fixed by 
machinery. The Russian Minister of Finance re- 
ported that, in mining districts, the increased pro- 
ductivity had been 30 per cent. Observers in Fin- 
land found in mining districts an increase of 50 per 
cent after Prohibition. 

All of us know that industrial efficiency was one 
of the chief reasons for Prohibition. Frederick W. 
Taylor, the chief apostle of Scientific Management, 
favored Prohibition and predicted its coming on just 
these grounds. 

A Connecticut manufacturer, who made a careful 
reckoning before Prohibition as to what drunken- 
ness among his employees cost him, thought that the 
elimination of drunkenness alone, without the elim- 
ination of moderate drinking, would increase his 
factory output over 20 per cent. 

In view of all these and the other facts in previous 
chapters, it seems safe to conclude that labor pro- 
ductivity should be increased by at least 10 per cent 
through Prohibition. 


THE ECONOMIC GOOD 159 


Such an increase in productivity ought to find 
expression in increased wages and profits, especially 
in territory that was wet before Prohibition. 


Prohibition Saves Six Billion Dollars a Year 

Now let us see how this has worked out in actual 
fact. National income in 1919, the year before Pro- 
hibition took effect, was estimated at $66,000,000,000 
by the National Bureau of Economic Research, our 
chief authority for such statistics. About three- 
fourths of this consisted of wages and profits, or 
$50,000,600,000. Let us assume that the remainder 
(interest, rent, etc.) was not increased through Pro- 
hibition. Most of the $50,000,000,000 was produced 
where the large cities and industries are, and these 
are mostly in the East, wet territory. A rough 
study shows that two-thirds of our national wealth, 
three-fourths of our corporate incomes, and four- 
fifths of our personal incomes subject to the income 
tax were in this territory. 

It follows that at least two-thirds of the Nation’s 
wages and profits (and perhaps even three-fourths) 
were produced in that territory, or over $33,000,000,- 
000. Applying the minimum estimate of 10 per 
cent, we calculate that at least $3,300,000,000 should 
be added to our national production by Prohibition 
—or would be added if Prohibition were fully en- 
forceed—simply through the release of human energy 
and skill. In fact this 10 per cent is trebly safe as 
aminimum. It is based on the minimum observed 


160 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


reduction of productivity of 2 per cent per glass of 
beer per day. It is based on an even instead of an 
uneven distribution of drinking among the workers 
of the whole country. It is then applied only to a 
part of the country. 

This $3,300,000,000 is 5 per cent of the total in- 
come of the whole United States in 1919.. It is in 
addition to $2,000,000,000 that were saved merely 
by transferring our energies from alcohol production 
to something possessing true value. In fact, the 
$2,000,000,000 loss from alcohol production would 
have been fully $3,000,000,000, perhaps $4,000,000,- 
000 to-day were it not for Prohibition, or, let us say 
(in accordance with various other estimates), an- 
other 5 per cent of our total income. 

In a nutshell, then, Prohibition saves 5 per cent 
that used to be wasted out of our incomes, and adds 
another 5 per cent into the bargain. 

The only factor which might appreciably reduce 
either of these 5 per cents applies to the former. 
That is the wasted money and effort represented by 
bootleg traffic. This is an unknown quantity but, 
according to the best estimates, official and unoffi- 
cial, is very small as compared with pre-prohibition 
traffic. 

This double gain, through the transfer of energy 
and the increase of energy, is over $6,000,000,000— 
without counting any savings in the cost of jails, 
almshouses, asylums, etc.; or any economic savings 
from reducing the death rate. 


THE ECONOMIC GOOD 161 


“Real” Wages Rise to a New Level 

Turning now to experience since Prohibition, we 
ask, Is there any sign of such an increase in national 
income? There is! 

We find that the “real”? wages of labor per hour, 
after making all due allowance for changes in the 
purchasing power of the dollar, increased 36 per cent 
between July, 1914, and January, 1925; also that 
most of this sudden improvement came immediately 
after Prohibition. 

Between 1892 and 1919, inclusive, “real’’ wages 
remained almost stationary. The fluctuations never 
exceeded 4 per cent above or below the average level 
for those twenty-eight years (excepting only once, 
in 1897, when it was nearly 7 per cent above). Like- 
wise, beginning with 1920, at a higher level, real 
wages have remained almost as uniform. This new 
level is 28 per cent above the old level. 

To repeat this striking fact in other words: With 
the coming of Prohibition, wages suddenly rose from 
their old level, which they had kept without much 
change for over a quarter of a century, to a new level 
where it now is, a quarter higher than the old. 


Other Economic Evidence 
Profits have also risen, as has the total income of 
the country, but the figures for profits are not so 
nearly up to date. All of us, however, know of our 
- present abounding prosperity. This is one reason 
for our unprecedented stock market. 


162 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


Furthermore, the statistics of various types of per- 
sonal savings, such as the assets of building and loan 
associations or the assets of life insurance companies, 
show a substantially greater rate of growth during 
the period 1920-25 than during the period 1915-20. 
This increased rate of growth is particularly marked 
if those assets are expressed in terms of purchasing 
power; that, is in “1913 dollars.” 

The foregoing facts fit perfectly with the theory 
that Prohibition should increase wages and profits 
by at least 5 per cent. Indeed, they leave a margin 
five times that figure to take account of other causes, 
as well as of the fact that this 5 per cent is a safe 
minimum and also of the fact that Prohibition is not 
fully enforced. Personally I am inclined to believe 
that Prohibition has saved and added much more 
than the $6,000,000,000 that I have estimated as a 
safe minimum. But it is always better to keep on 
the safe side, and to mention no higher figure spe- 
cifically; for even a paltry $6,000,000,000 a year is 
well worth saving! 

This is one reason why Gary, Leland, and other 
industrialists believe in Prohibition. If Prohibition 
enforcement cost us even $1,000,000,000 a year, it 
would be well worth while purely as an economic 
investment. 

These conclusions are confirmed by Mr. Hoover, 
who, in a speech made before the United States 
Chamber of Commerce, said: 


Exhaustive study from many angles of pro- 
duction over average periods ten years apart, 


THE ECONOMIC GOOD 163 


before and since the War, would indicate that 
while our productivity should have increased 
about 15 per cent, due to the increase in popu- 
lation, yet the actual increase has been from 
25 to 30 per cent, indicating an increase of 
efficiency of somewhere from 10 to 15 per 
cent. 


Mr. Hoover also said: 


In addition to elimination of waste we have 
had the benefit of notable advances in science, 
improvement in methods of management, and 
Prohibition. 


Professor Carver of Harvard says: 


Anyone who attempts to explain all these 
amazing signs of prosperity among our working 
classes without mentioning Prohibition seems 
to me as extreme as the one who would explain 
them on the ground of Prohibition alone. I 
cannot explain them except by bringing in Pro- 
hibition as a contributing factor. 


“Economic Nonsense” About Prohibition © 

When Prohibition came, we were told that to 
destroy the saloon was to destroy that much busi- 
ness, that saloons help “make money circulate.” 
This is what in the classroom we call “economic non- 
sense.” To-day I think such talk seems nonsensical 
to almost everybody. No one has the hardihood to 
revive such statements, In view of our prosperity 
since Prohibition. 

But we do hear it said that Prohibition is costly 
to administer, and that it deprives us of a source 


164 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


of revenue for taxes. This also is “economic non- 
sense,” since the real source of taxation is income. 
Not only income taxes, but all taxes, are paid out 
of income. Prohibition has added $6,000,000,000 a 
year to this stream of income, the source of all 
taxes. It is therefore penny-wise and pound-foolish 
to argue that Prohibition destroys revenue. It sim- 
ply requires a transfer of taxes from alcoholic bey- 
erages to non-alcoholic beverages, and to the other 
products to which our energies have been trans- 
ferred. 

The simple truth is, Prohibition has replaced a 
parasitic industry by constructive industries. Brew- 
eries and saloons have given place to something 
more valuable. A survey made by Robert E. Cor- 
radini, of the World League Against Alcoholism, of 
the condition of about 3,000 former saloon proper- 
ties in the Bowery, on Broadway and on all of the 
avenues of Manhattan, as well as side streets, 
showed that saloons have been replaced by restau- 
rants, clothing establishments, groceries, candy 
shops, shoe stores, hardware stores, jewelry shops, 
banks, etc. The value of the land on these sites 
has not fallen as was predicted, but in most cases 
has risen. The new businesses that have preémpted 
these sites are not only many more than the number 
of saloons they displaced, but each has more em- 
ployees—from an average of two under the saloon 
régime to 314 to 414 persons under present em- 
ployers (61) (62, p. 12) (63). 


THE ECONOMIC GOOD 165 


Diminution of Poverty 


Turning the picture around, just as Prohibition 
increases prosperity, it decreases poverty. A sub- 
committee of the Committee of Fifty for the inves- 
tigation of the liquor problem published, in 1899, 
a volume on the economic aspects of the problem. 
The investigation covered a period of about three 
years, and was carried on under the general direction 
of my colleague, Professor Henry W. Farnam of 
Yale University. The general conclusions of this 
investigation were that, of the poverty which came 
under the notice of the charity organization socie- 
ties, about 25 per cent could be traced, directly or 
indirectly, to the use of liquor; of the poverty found 
in almshouses, about 37 per cent. In the investiga- 
tion of crime, the conclusion was reached that liquor 
was a first cause in 31 per cent of the criminals 
studied, and that it entered in as a cause, directly 
or indirectly, in 50 per cent (64, pp. 79-134). 

Labor leaders denounced Prohibition at the hear- 
ings before the United States Senate Judiciary Sub- 
committee in April, 1926, because they resented its 
interference with “personal liberty.” But I noticed 
they did not say that it increased poverty. The late 
Warren S. Stone, Grand Chief of the Brotherhood 
of Locomotive Engineers, said on this subject: 


There are some people who labor under the 
delusion that they are going to have the Pro- 
hibition law modified or abolished. Some one 
should wake them from their Rip Van Wirkie 


166 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


sleep. I wish they could go with me for thirty 

days as I travel over this broad land and see 
the homes being erected everywhere, note the 
accounts being opened in savings banks, see the 
families out together in parks, recreation and 
community centers, children well fed, with 
shoes to wear, and warm clothing, going to 
school; see prosperity, happiness, and sunshine 
where formerly there were only squalor and 
misery. All this is a result of Prohibition. We 
are not going back to the old condition of things 
with their misery, want, and poverty—never 
again. Prohibition has come to stay. 


Maguire’s Criticism 

In the preceding calculation I have found that, 
beginning with Prohibition, wages, the fluctuations 
of which had never exceeded 4 per cent above or 
below the average level for 28 years, rose to a new 
level 28 per cent above the old. Further, it was 
found that profits had risen, and that savings 
achieved substantially greater growth in this Prohi- 
bition period. Out of this 28 per cent increase in 
wages and profits, I have ascribed only five to Pro- 
hibition. 

Notwithstanding this moderate economic claim in 
behalf of the benefits of Prohibition, I am reminded 
by Thomas F. Maguire, in his summing up for the 
Wets at the Washington hearings before the Sen- 
ate Judiciary Sub-committee in April, 1926, that I 
have failed to take account of the plight of the 
American farmers during the first five years of Pro- 


THE ECONOMIC GOOD 167 


hibition, and to this he adds the interesting informa- 
tion—if it is true—that present prosperity is largely 
accounted for by the new vogue of buying many 
classes of goods, including automobiles, on install- 
ments. 

While of the 37 billion dollars in retail sales dur- 
ing 1925, as recorded by the Department of Com- 
merce, it is believed that about 5 billions represent 
the total of installment buying, this is not, compar- 
atively speaking, a very large sum. Besides, the 
5 billions is the total volume for a full year, not the 
volume of installment paper, which ranges from 
ten weeks to two years outstanding at a given time. 
Moreover, the sum includes the cash-down payments 
of from 10 per cent to 40 per cent when the sales 
were made. Probably the total outstanding install- 
ment credits, on the basis of sales in 1925, should 
be placed at about $2,500,000,000. 

This sum does not bulk large in the nation’s busi- 
ness! As compared with these two and one-half 
billions, bank loans are constantly outstanding in 
sums ranging from 20 to 30 billions. There are 
upward of 100 billions of long-term bonds outstand- 
ing in the Federal, municipal, and corporate classes, 
and in country and city mortgages, and of these 
about 8 billions customarily represent installment 
loans on dwellings. Moreover, all rents have from 
the time of serfdom embodied the installment idea 
carried out in perpetuity. In the enormous uptake 
of the annual volume of our domestic and foreign 


168 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


trade the growth of installment credits is slight, and 
can have small influence on present prosperity. But 
doubtless Prohibition has lessened the risks, by 
putting them on a soberer class of installment pros- 
pects, and has been a real factor in the spread of 
this method of budgeting the family income. 

As for the hard times which the farmer has ex- 
perienced during the unprecedented rise in the wage 
level of the industrial population, no one is better 
aware than the farmer himself that Prohibition has 
done nothing to accentuate them. Farmers as a 
class are prohibitionists. To Prohibition, which has 
reduced the drain on the Saturday payroll in the 
food-consuming cities, they ascribe, if anything, an 
alleviation of their woes. 

The trouble of farmers in the Middle West is due, 
as is well known, to influences antedating National 
Prohibition by many years. Fully a decade prior 
to 1920, farm lands had been “boomed” and bought 
on margin at highly inflated prices. Then a great 
credit deflation occurred in 1920. During this de- 
flation the whole country suffered, but the Middle 
Western farmer suffered more than the rest, because 
he was caught deeply in debt; because food products 
are especially sensitive to price movements; because, 
following the war, the Panama Canal opened up new 
competition; because the war demand for food 
abroad had disappeared; and because of the Ford- 
ney-MacCumber Tariff. 

The authoritative spokesmen for the farmers, in- 


THE ECONOMIC GOOD 169 


cluding Senator Capper of Kansas, ex-Governor 
Lowden of Illinois, and Wallace, editor of Wallace’s 
Farmer, are agreed in putting the blame for the 
farmer’s plight chiefly upon the high tariff, which 
compels the farmer to buy at high prices in a pro- 
tected market and to sell at the low world prices 
in unprotected foreign and domestic markets. But, 
fundamentally, the difficulty would have been pre- 
vented had the purchasing power of the dollar been 
stabilized in the pre-prohibition years to forestall 
the inflation of prices that ultimately brought farm 
deflation in its train. 

It may also be noted that not all farmers are 
suffering to-day. It is only the Mid-western farmer 
who is especially hard hit. Recent reports from the 
state of Washington, for instance, indicate that the 
farmers in that region are prosperous. 

In conclusion, we may say that Prohibition is not 
only sound hygiene but sound economics; not only 
is it the greatest hygienic experiment but the great- 
est economic experiment in history and one of the 
most successful. 


CHAPTER XII 
PERSONAL AND SocIAL LIBERTY 


Interest of Society Paramount 


But, we are told, it matters not how much hygienic 
and economic good Prohibition may do. It’s wrong 
in principle. It is an interference with personal 
liberty. Even if Prohibition saves over six billion 
dollars a year, improves health and efficiency, 
decreases disease and death, it isn’t worth it if it 
interferes with personal liberty. 

Well, does it? 

The social organization is such that true liberty 
must be a compromise between the marauding in- 
stincts of one man, and the desire for safety on the 
part of another. Personal liberty is therefore lim- 
ited to boundaries set by the welfare and liberty of 
the social group. In a recent speech, Senator Wil- 
lam E. Borah of Idaho said: 


The man in the automobile may be opposed 
to the Eighteenth Amendment, but he will in- 
stantly discharge a drinking chauffeur. The 
train may be crowded with delegates to the 
anti-Prohibition convention, but they would 
mob the engineer who would take a drink while 


170 


PERSONAL AND SOCIAL LIBERTY 171 


drawing his precious freight. The industrial 
magnate may talk critically of sumptuary laws, 
but he will apply them like a despot to the 
man who watches over the driving power of his 
vast establishment. When safety is involved, 
we are all drys. Where the exigency of modern 
life demands a clear brain and instant decision 
in order to save thousands of lives and millions 
of property, we are all dry (30). 

This merely emphasizes the principle that when 
one man’s personal liberty is sacrificed to the per- 
sonal liberty arrogated by another man then the 
point at which the first man’s liberty becomes 
private license is reached. It is then against the 
social liberty, and therefore to be prohibited. 

The robber takes the liberty or license to arrogate, 
unearned, the products of his neighbors’ efforts, but 
the liberty of the community as a whole necessitates 
law prohibiting the vicious license that the robber 
takes. The murderer arrogates to himself the license 
to kill another, but the victim’s liberty is thereby 
wholly forfeited, and laws against murder are force- 
ful in their prohibition. White men of the South 
demanded the license to enslave negroes, but the 
country as a whole believed that such enslavement 
was unjust to the negro and morally prejudicial to 
the whole community. The license to enslave was 
consequently forfeited for the larger consideration 
of the liberation, emancipation, of the country as a 
_whole from a degrading system of human exploita- 
tion. 


172 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


Ignorance is prohibited by laws compelling chil- 
dren to go to school. Smallpox is prohibited by re- 
quiring children to be vaccinated. Typhoid fever 
and other diseases are prohibited by providing for 
clean milk and water and inspected meat. Tuber- 
culosis is prohibited by the restriction of people’s 
liberty to spit in public places, or to build disease- 
breeding tenements. An industrial ailment is pro- 
hibited by not allowing manufacturers the liberty 
to produce poisonous matches. Drug addiction is 
prohibited by not permitting anyone to buy and 
peddle habit-forming “dope” or to use it as he 
pleases. And alcohol is simply the chief example 
of habit-forming dope. 

Centuries of experience with alcoholic drink have 
placed it among the marauders, the robbers, the dis- 
ease spreaders, the enslavers, and the killers. 

Senator Borah is right. The organization of soci- 
ety is now so complex that in many lines of endeavor 
we carry each other’s safety in our hands, and none 
of us is free if another takes the liberty to dull his 
wits with drink. 


Drink as Destroyer of Drinker’s Own Liberty 

Not only does alcoholic drink put a restriction 
on the liberty of all those about the drinker, but 
it manacles the drinker himself. 

The mental worker who takes alcohol voluntarily 
puts a yoke upon himself. He limits the exercise 
of his faculties, for he cannot judge so wisely, will 


a 


PERSONAL AND SOCIAL LIBERTY 173 


so forcefully, think so clearly, as when his system is 
free from alcohol. The athlete who takes alcoholic 
liquor is similarly handicapped, for he is not free 
to run so fast, Jump so high, pitch a baseball so 
accurately as when his system is free from the drug. 
Anyone who has become a “slave to alcohol” has 
lost the very essence of personal liberty. 

That man has the greatest liberty who most com- 
pletely satisfies his major human instincts—self- 
preservation, workmanship, home-making,  self- 
respect—while retaining an harmonious relation to 
the social group in which he lives. 

According to a court decision in the state of Ohio: 


Liberty, as used in the first section of the Bill 
of Rights, does not mean a mere freedom from 
physical restraint or from the state of slavery, 
but is deemed to embrace the right of man to be 
free in the enjoyment of those faculties with 
which he has been endowed by the Creator, sub- 
ject only to such restraints as are necessary for 
the common welfare. 


The liberty of the alcoholic-drink manufacturer 
and seller to profit by the enslavement of the 
drinker was prohibited in 1920 by the adoption of 
the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution and 
the passage of the Volstead act. That is, the liberty 
of one man to make and sell intoxicating drink was 
held to impair the liberty of another man to enjoy 
health and economic and social welfare. Ask the 
wife of the workingman who wants full “personal 


174 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


liberty” to drink whether this would increase her 
personal liberty. She will cut out all technicalities 
and go straight to the main point—that her hus- 
band’s personal liberty to drink takes away her per- 
sonal liberty to eat! 


Inberty as Defined by Law 
Various legal decisions have defined personal lib- 
erty as follows: 


Liberty as understood in this country is not 
license, but liberty regulated by law (31). 

Liberty, the greatest of all rights, is not un- 
restricted license to act according to one’s own 
will. Liberty is freedom from restraint under 
conditions essential to equal enjoyment of the 
same right by others. It is then liberty regu- 
lated by law (32). 

Intoxicating liquors belong to a class of com- 
modities which may be made contraband at 
the will of Congress (33). 

Nor can it be said that the Government in- 
terferes with or impairs anyone’s constitutional 
rights to liberty or to property when the gov- 
ernment determines that the manufacture and 
sale of intoxicating drinks for general or indi- 
vidual use, as a beverage, are or may become 
harmful to society and constitute, therefore, a 
business in which no one may lawfully en- 


gage (34). 
We see, then, that, properly defined and analyzed, 
true personal liberty is enlarged through Prohibition 
just as it is enlarged through compulsory education 


PERSONAL AND SOCAL LIBERTY 175 


or through any other beneficent legislation. It is 
just because I believe so enthusiastically in enlarg- 
ing the personal liberty of mankind to enjoy the full 
possession of its powers that I favor Prohibition. 


CHAPTER XIII 
THE SociaL Goop 


Testimony of Social Workers 

In the emancipation of youth from the dominance 
of the saloon and in the dwindling number of new 
recruits to the army of drunkards, as attested by the 
records charted in this book, is afforded a measure 
of the social liberty already achieved under National 
Prohibition. But certain social benefits should be 
further emphasized. ‘The chief beneficiaries of the 
dry law in America are the small children,” accord- 
ing to Theodore A. Lothrop, general secretary of the 
Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty 
to Children. ‘“I'wice as many children to-day would 
be victims of Improper bringing up because of liquor, 
if the dry law were not effective.” 

The same society found intemperance in only 21.9 
per cent of its cases in 1924, as compared with 47.7 
per cent in 1916. The annual report for 1924 said, 


Whatever other results statistics may show 
as to the value and effectiveness of National 
Prohibition in suppressing the evils of intem- 
perance, our records show that since National 
Prohibition intemperance has been at all times 
less than half that prevailing before. The con- 

176 


THE SOCIAL GOOD 177 


dition of women and children has correspond- 
ingly improved. 

Lieutenant Colonel Hamon of the Salvation 
Army, representing Commander Evangeline Booth 
at the National Prohibition hearings in Washington 
(1, pp. 677-682), testified to the same effect. 
Colonel Hamon said that the Cherry Street Settle- 
ment found it no longer necessary to provide cloth- 
ing for the children attending its club meetings, for 
since Prohibition came they have been well clothed 
and shod at home. In the New York Rescue Work 
for Women and Girls, the head of that department 
of the Salvation Army reported that before Prohi- 
bition, 50 per cent of the aid furnished in homes 
was because of drunkenness, and this cause had now 
dropped to 1 per cent of the total. The Salvation 
Army was taking cases in its hospital of an entirely 
different type from the old cases of acute alcohol- 
ism, and was specializing on preventive cases. 

At these hearings Lee W. Beatty, superintendent 
of the Madison Square Church House of New York 
City, gave estimates of a drop of one-half to one- 
twentieth in the expenses per month for preventing 
mothers with little children from being dispossessed 
and providing them with food and clothing, as com- 
pared with the pre-prohibition expenses of this 
Church House. On the opposite corner where a 
saloon had been there was now a haberdashery, and 
not a speakeasy in the whole section (1, p. 770). 
Further, the Church House found that most of the 


178 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


former beneficiaries of its fresh-air fund, who 
crowded their accommodations five times a summer 
in pre-prohibition days, dwindled to a maximum 
party of 27 during the first year of Prohibition. 
One family, in which the drinking father had be- 
come sober, was paying $300 for a bungalow at the 
seashore for the season. Mr. Beatty had detected 
but one case of home-brewing, although he had 
made house-to-house inspections in the neighbor- 
hood of the Church House. 

Mrs. Katherine Condon Foster, student secretary 
of the Board of Education at the Northern Baptist 
Convention, testified at Washington of the changed 
habits and disposition against drinking manifested 
in the 30 colleges and universities she had visited. 
Now, drinking was rare, sporadic, and conspicuous 
where it was formerly not at all unusual. Mrs. Fos- 
ter reported the testimony of a house mother at 
one of the boys’ preparatory schools, that in her 22 
years’ experience the few years under Prohibition 
have relieved her of most of her cares. Among the 
university fraternities, especially, Mrs. Foster said 
that the faculties and administrative offices reported 
notable improvement over the pre-prohibition years 
(1, pp. 694-696). 


Testimony of Newspaper Editors 
As to certain other social aspects of Prohibition, 
Edward Keating, ex-Congressman from Colorado 
and editor of the official organ of the railroad labor 


THE SOCIAL GOOD 179 


organizations at Washington, D. C., gave the results 
of his personal observations as a newspaper man to 
the Senate Judiciary Sub-committee. Mr. Keating 
testified that it was the general opinion of news- 
paper men from New York to San Francisco that the 
liquor interests when licensed had never obeyed the 
law, and had been in combination with all other 
evil interests in cities and states to secure unjust 
advantages. It was his belief that since Prohibition 
the public had the advantage of dealing with the 
liquor industry as an outlaw, a hunted thing 
fighting for its life. Hence it was easier to regu- 
late it. 

Research Bulletin No. 5 of the Federal Council 
of Churches, 1925, among 170 replies to its ques- 
tionnaire sent to the editors of morning newspapers 
in the United States and to other newspapers in six 
states, furnishes a commentary on this testimony of 
Mr. Keating’s. Of the 170 editors who replied, 116 
said their newspapers were favorable to the Volstead 
Act, while 30 were neutral, and only 24 favored 
repeal of the amendment. Reporting on the senti- 
ment of their communities toward Prohibition, 106 
editors said it was favorable, and 118 editors said 
their own attitude was of approval of the Volstead 
Act. These replies, which were not from the large 
Eastern cities, testify to the public sentiment pre- 
vailing throughout the nation. 

_ At the Prohibition hearmgs Mr. Keating remarked 
at the disappearance of drunkenness at public meet- 


180 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


ings, political caucuses, state and national political 
conventions; at county fairs, baseball and football 
games, holiday celebrations, and all celebrations of 
a public character. Moreover, the former advertise- 
ments of liquor in the newspapers and magazines, 
on billboards and electric signs all over the country 
had vanished, as well as the open display of liquor 
in the hundreds of thousands of saloons on the prin- 
cipal street corners. How could intoxicants, he 
asked, be drunk now to such a degree when this 
tremendous incitement by advertising had com- 
pletely disappeared? 


Benefits in Wet Pennsylvania 


Dr. Ellen C. Potter, of the Department of Wel- 
fare, Pennsylvania Alcohol Permit Board, named at 
the Prohibition hearings six reasons why there 
should be no weakening of the Prohibition law in 
her state. Among the measurable benefits were: 


1. The disappearance of the saloons. 

2. The diversion into productive channels 
of industrial forces, wage earners, capital, etc., 
formerly catering to the liquor traffic, which had 
resulted in an unprecedented industrial growth. 

3. Increasing economic well-being of the 
people, with more stable employment, greater 
individual earning power, earnings diverted 
from the anti-social to social and productive 
uses, which mean increased consumption of 
goods, saving for building activities, insurance, 
etc. 


THE SOCIAL GOOD 181 


4, Lessened demand upon charitable relief 
as a consequence of drink. 

5. Definite health benefits occurring in low- 
ered mortality in general and from alcoholism, 
and lessened mental illness due to drink. 

6. Decreased illness from drunkenness in 
general, fewer prison commitments and prison 
population (1, p. 722). 

Again speaking for wet Pennsylvania, the Right 
Reverend Bishop James Henry Darlington of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church, said his diocese em- 
braced the coal regions, wherein the last strike, the 
longest in 25 years, had continued for six months 
under the Prohibition law without one outrage being 
reported to the police. Bishop Darlington testified 
that after his Church had called for renewed enforce- 
ment of the anti-narcotic law, fearing that the nar- 
cotic habit would increase after Prohibition, it was 
found that the sale of narcotics had fallen off one- 
half. The habit-forming drugs had formerly been 
purveyed chiefly through the saloons, and the traffic 
had largely died with them. 


Other Evidence 

Frank J. Harwood, Moderator of the National 
Council of Congregational Churches, testified as a 
manufacturer that his mill-yard was daily full of 
motor cars driven by his workmen, many of whom 
credited the fact to Prohibition and the savings it 
occasioned them. Every morning three to four 
milk wagons would drive to the mill, as the men 


182 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


were using milk instead of beer, and better work 
resulted (1, p. 804). 

As a member of the City Council of Cleveland, 
Ohio, Mrs. Helen H. Green quoted statistics of the 
Cleveland Juvenile Court from 1915 to 1925. In 
that interval Cleveland had increased by 300,000 
in population, but juvenile delinquency had de- 
creased, and had fallen from 2,847 boys and 655 girls 
in 1918, the last year before State Prohibition, to 
but 1,898 boys and 621 girls in 1925. The Night 
Court sitting on liquor cases had been done away 
with, a single judge now taking care of all that came 
before the Municipal Court; the cases had dimin- 
ished from 41,150 in 1917 to but 23,393 in 1925. 
The Associated Charities of Cleveland had reported 
a pronounced decrease in poverty, as compared with 
pre-prohibition years (1, pp. 772-782). 

Kentucky, the home of more distilleries and 
breweries than any other state, was reported by 
Mrs. Helm Bruce, chairman of the Law Enforce- 
ment Committee of that state, to be happy, pros- 
perous and sober. The great whisky lobby was gone. 
The saloons had disappeared. Kentucky’s streets, 
full of high-powered automobiles and trucks, were 
no longer dangerous. Its factories had ceased to be 
empty on Mondays, but filled with clear-eyed men 
(1, p. 717). Patrick H. Callahan, manufacturer of 
Louisville, Ky., said that’ when Prohibition came the 
distillers immediately put their money into legiti- 
mate business. Unskilled labor formerly employed 


THE SOCIAL GOOD 183 


in distillery work at poor wages, found more stable 
employment at better pay, increasing their purchas- 
ing power for the benefit of tradesmen. The flood of 
new money invested in skyscrapers and other build- 
ings in Louisville had produced a new skyline. 
Assessments for taxes rose from $122,000,000 in 
1920 to $319,000,000 in 1925. Building permits 
increased from $2,179,158 to $29,910,000 in the same 
period, and national bank deposits from $68,000,000 
to $92,000,000. Savings bank deposits went up from 
$30,000,000 to $44,000,000. Population grew from 
234,000 in 1920 to 305,000 in 1925—a growth which, 
under old conditions, would have taken 17 years. 
But police records showed arrests for drunkenness 
reduced from 6,172 in 1919 to only 2,462 in 1924. 
Here, again, the figures of the Moderation League 
were shown to be incorrect and exaggerated (1, 
p. 839). 

James A. Hewes of Boston reported that since 
Prohibition he had had little difficulty with drunk- 
enness among his traveling salesmen, whereas for- 
merly he was constantly changing their personnel 
for this single reason. Dr. Raymond, General Sec- 
retary of the Family Welfare Society of Boston, said 
that the number of families in which temperance 
was producing poverty decreased from 25 per cent 
in 1918 to but 9 per cent in 1925, adding that “the 
facts are even more convincing than the figures” ; 
_ and that drunkenness now “stands out like a gore 
thumb, and rarely escapes recognition,” as it did 


184 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


formerly. H. O. Brewer, of Brewer & Company, 
Worcester, Mass., said Prohibition had cleaned up 
an undesirable section in which their manufacturing 
plants were located; that employees were appar- 
ently better off financially than in pre-prohibition 
days, social conditions were improved, real estate 
values had risen, and he believed the concession of 
light wines and beer would be a concession to the 
evils of liquor (1, pp. 915-924). 

In this manner the testimony may be multiplied 
from abundant records. 


Aristocratic Tradition of Drink 

As contrasted with such testimony of augmented 
social welfare guarded by the Prohibition law, what 
plea can be urged in behalf of the few wealthy and 
influential men who persist in joining, with the liquor 
interests in the cry of personal liberty when they 
mean personal license? 

For alcoholism among the rich merely carries on 
in a democracy one of the outdated traditions of 
feudalism, when drinking was a lordly luxury. AlI- 
though the accumulation of wealth is basically a 
good thing, especially when it lifts the general 
standard of living, increases the variety of whole- 
some goods and decreases the strenuousness of 
labor, there is always a danger lurking in it. His- 
tory is full of examples of how luxury enervates and 
harms, and leads to the decline of civilizations. 
With wealth often come luxury, abuse of power, and 


THE SOCIAL GOOD 185 


degeneration of the racial stock. In monarchical 
Europe alcoholism became the badge of the gentle- 
man, who displayed his mark of leisure, drunken- 
ness, as the woman of to-day displays her diamonds. 
We have still as a survival in society the persistence 
of the ideal of aristocratic vice, which has come in 
conflict with the modern ideal of increased social 
responsibility. This heightened social sense is 
brought about by the production of more powerful 
instruments of civilization, which may at any mo- 
ment become death-dealing if intrusted to hands 
and brains that are stupefied by drink. 

With the old ideal was the tradition that work 
of any kind, or service to society as a whole, was a 
disgrace. Drinking and carousing were part of the 
insignia of rank, fortune, and leisure. Celebrations 
of all kinds were accompanied by drinking, which 
was to be expected on social occasions and as part 
of the:personal amenities. The tradition crept into 
commercial life in the signing of contracts and the 
booking of orders. Salesmen were expected to treat 
their patrons to wines and whiskies, and friends 
were often called upon to celebrate with potations 
any unwonted stroke of luck or achievement by 
their neighbors. I recall being invited with many 
other guests on a special train which bore us to 
the cotton fields of North Carolina, to see demon- 
strated there the work of a new mechanical cotton 
_ picker. We were told the story how this machine 
had been endorsed by the United States Depart- 


186 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


ment of Agriculture, an event which was celebrated 
by the inventor, who called in his friends, and the 
excesses of the spree that followed brought him to 
his deathbed. 

The abolition of the saloon and of drinking in 
clubs and at public dinners are an unequivocal sign 
that the new ideal of social responsibility has pro- 
gressed. The completion of this triumph will come 
with the final defeat of the Old Guard of the com- 
mercial liquor interests combined with the remnant 
of social and intellectual leaders of wealth who are 
making common cause with them against National 
Prohibition. 

The method employed by the brewing and distil- 
lery interests in effecting this alliance, and in organ- 
izing bodies of distinguished membership, will be 
the subject of another chapter. | 


CHAPTER XIV 
“PERSONAL LiperTY’—CoMMERCIALIZED 


Who Is Maguire? 

When the Moderation League of New York, the 
Constitutional Liberty League of Massachusetts, the 
Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, 
and the American Federation of Labor appointed a 
joint legislative committee to represent them at 
Washington during the Prohibition hearings of the 
Senate Judiciary Sub-committee in April, 1926, they 
selected as their spokesman Julien Codman, Vice 
President of the Constitutional Liberty League of 
Massachusetts. Mr. Codman was invited to call 
the wet witnesses, Senators William Cabell Bruce of 
Maryland and Walter E. Edge of New Jersey, whose 
several bills and resolutions opposing the Prohibi- 
tion law were under consideration. Supporting these 
Senators on the Sub-committee was Senator Reed of 
Missouri. Next to Senator Reed sat a gentleman, 
about whose connection with the hearings I have 
this information: 

You expressed the wish that I write you 
about the mysterious gentleman who sat at 


Senator Reed’s right elbow during the hearing 
187 


188 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


at Washington. The man is Thomas F. 
Maguire. For a number of years he has been 
connected with the Heffenreffer brewing inter- 
ests in Boston. He has acted as a lobbyist and 
general factotum for liquor men in years gone 
by. He isa well-versed, shrewd man in his line 
of business. I was told by a newspaper man 
that just now he is directly representing the 
Charles 8S. Rackemann-Julien Codman group, 
who are organizing here in Boston as the Con- 
stitutional Liberty League. 

It was this Thomas F. Maguire, executive secre- 
tary of the Massachusetts Constitutional Liberty 
League, who presented for the joint legislative com- 
mittee of the Wets at Washington the final sum- 
mining up, brief, and analysis of the evidence before 
the Senate Sub-committee on the Judiciary. 

When Senator Walsh demanded of Mr. Codman 
at this hearing the membership roll of the Modera- 
tion League and its affiliated organizations, the 
spokesman for these bodies answered: 

I can tell you the names, or can give you 
the names, of their presidents, vice presidents, 
and advisory committees, and all of their execu- 
tive officers, but I am under the impression that 
the Moderation League (Inc.) of New York, 
has not much of a membership, but is what you 
might better describe as a small working organ- 
ization (1, p. 43). 

It is commonly suspected that, unbeknownst to the 
respectables in the Moderation League, the liquor 
interests are behind it in some way. But this has 


“PERSONAL LIBERTY” COMMERCIALIZED 189 


not been proved, and is indignantly denied by those 
in a position to know. Let us assume, therefore, 
that there is no connection. 


Confidential Report on Publicity 

There is one question which we should all like to 
have answered: What, if anything, is the United 
States Brewers’ Association doing now? They have 
not disbanded. . Are they sitting idly by and letting 
events take their course? They never did so before. 

During the pre-prohibition Senate investigation 
in 1919 there was offered in evidence ‘A Confiden- 
tial Report of the Publication Committee, to be read 
at Executive Conference,’ of the United States 
Brewers’ Association. This report said: 


During the past year a large number of arti- 
cles have been published in many of the leading 
newspapers and magazines which have either 
been suggested by us or have been based on our 
investigations, and from the medical viewpoint 
articles and editorials have been published in 
the Medical Record, in the Journal of the Medi- 
cal Association, and in the British Journal of 
Inebriety. 

Articles have been published in the Survey, 
Outlook, American Underwriter, and the Jour- 
nal of the American Statistical Association, and 
the American Food Journal and the National 
Municipal Review (4, pp. 60-62). 


Now articles and editorials published in impor- 
- tant scientific, medical, and technical journals must 


190 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


be written by men of professional standing, if they 
appear at all. The names of such professional men, 
of course, have been sought as wet authorities and 
as a screen behind which the brewers may carry on 
their propaganda. 

Clearly all of the members of the Moderation 
League are put on notice by such evidence as this, 
derived from the same confidential publicity report 
which tells of pre-prohibition leagues organized by 
the brewers: 


Another effective means of publicity estab- 
lished by you was when arrangements were 
recently made to take over the control, and 
direct the movements of, the National Model 
License League. This organization has an es- 
tablished name throughout the country, and it 
is the means of securing extensive dissemina- 
tion of friendly matter. The fact that you are 
directing this movement will bring it into more 
harmonious accord with the general plans of 
publicity and organization established in Na- 
tional and State campaigns . . . (65, p. 4). 


Such organizations have, in the past, been de- 
tected in exploiting the names of “high respectables” 
without their knowledge. Granted that the Moder- 
ation League has no brewery connections, the names 
they carry can be exploited in other ways. It is 
easy for a brewer to reprint a “respectable” article 
against Prohibition and give it a circulation many 
times what it would otherwise have. Thus the re- 
spectables become, in spite of themselves, the cats- 
paw of the liquor interests. 


“PERSONAL LIBERTY” COMMERCIALIZED 191 


The Honest Wets 


From time immemorial the same old methods 
have been employed by the liquor interests to utilize 
respectable members of the community. Evidence 
of this is furnished by Mr. Ernest Gordon, in ““T'wo 
Footnotes to the History of the Anti-Alcohol Move- 
ment.” He explains the methods early employed 
in Massachusetts: 


The Massachusetts law, the culmination of 
a self-sacrificing agitation, was passed in 1852. 
The distractions of Slavery, Civil War, and the 
reconstruction period had made its proper 
enforcement extremely difficult. The liquor 
dealers, according to their usual tactics, had 
broken the law and then explained to the pub- 
lic the impossibility of its enforcement. Those 
elements to which Prohibition has always been 
as smoke to the eyes and vinegar to the teeth, 
instead of rallying to law enforcement, used the 
opportunity to secure its repeal. Hx-Governor 
Andrew, lowering himself to become counsel 
for the (illegal) liquor interests, threw his great 
influence against it. In 1867 petitions were 
presented for a license law. The list of signa- 
tures is characteristic. At the head came the 
conventional good man, in the present instance 
Alpheus Hardy, a leading merchant and phi- 
lanthropist. Then followed thirteen Harvard 
professors, the Episcopal bishop, various Irish 
Catholic priests, the French consul, and many 
influential citizens of the State (35, p. 4).* 


Hugh F. Fox, who is still Secretary of the United 
States Brewers’ Association, testified in 1919 that 


* The italics are mine. 


192 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


“it was an utterly impossible task to reach the mass 
of the people directly” (4, p. 84), and that they 
would be obliged to “try to get leaders interested in 
putting forward some kind of a program no matter 
how drastic it might be” (4, p. 83). 

As Senator Capper says, however: 


It would be unfair to say that all the per- 
sonnel of the organizations now politically ac- 
tive against Prohibition is connected with the 
liquor interests. Nevertheless, any liberaliza- 
tion of the law permitting the sale of beer or 
wine would redound chiefly to the benefit of the 
brewery and wine interests and they are, there- 
fore, deeply concerned in the success of the 
campaign now being waged (66, p. 161). 


“Ticense they mean, when Liberty they cry” 


In examining the Massachusetts Constitutional 
Liberty League, affiliated in a common bond with 
-the Moderation League of New York, it may be 
of interest to examine into “Liberty Leagues” of the 
recent past. 

A colloquy on the subject occurred between John 
A. McDermott, Manager of the Organization Bureau 
of the United States Brewers’ Association, when an 
investigation was made of the relation of the brew- 
ing and liquor interests to German propaganda, and 
his Senate questioners (4, p. 402). Mr. McDermott 
said that he had held his position with the United 
States Brewers’ Association for eleven years, and 
that he was employed to organize the brewers in 


“PERSONAL LIBERTY” COMMERCIALIZED 193 


the different states, and to combat the Prohibition 
movement: 


Masor Humes: Did you have anything to 
do with promoting the organization of retail 
liquor dealers’ associations as well, encouraging 
that work? 

Mer. McDermott: Where we were in a state 
fight, or a county fight, or anything of that kind, 
if they were not organized, I organized them; 
yes, sir. 

Masor Humes: You organized them as the 
emergency arose? 

Mr. McDrrmotr: Absolutely. 

Masor Humes: Did you have any working 
agreement, or were you in touch, with the 
National Wholesale Liquor Dealers’ Associa- 
tion, in organizing the state bodies of each 
organization in the several states in which you 
operated? 

Mr. McDermott: I do not know that I ever 
organized any State wholesale liquor dealers’ 
association. 

Masor Humes: I say, you cooperated? 

Mr. McDermott: Oh, yes. 

Masor Humes: You worked together in 
order each to organize his own branch of the 


trade? 
Mr. McDermott: Yes. (4, p. 402.) 
* * * * * 


Masor Humes: Was it not your policy, when 
you went into a state, to organize as many asso- 
ciations of various kinds as possible, liberty 
leagues, personal liberty leagues, manufacturers’ 


194. 


PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


and dealers’ clubs, and other organizations, giv- 
ing them various names, in order to further 
your propaganda and carry on your organiza- 
tion work? 

Mr. McDerrmott: Certainly. We organized 
all the elements that were opposed to Prohibi- 
tion. 

Masor Humes: And you organized them 
under some trade name or some other name that 
would distinguish them from brewery organi- 
zations or liquor organizations? 

Mr. McDermott: The local people would 
organize, and they would select their own 
TAM els 

SENATOR STERLING: And under whatever 
name they were organized, for the purpose of 
fighting Prohibition? 

Mr. McDermott: Yes, they were organized 
to fight Prohibition. 

Masor Humes: Was it not your purpose to 
use names for these organizations that would 
not indicate the real, underlying purpose of the 
organization? 

Mr. McDermort: I never looked at it that 
way, because before they went along very far 
everyone could understand the underlying prin- 
ciples of the organization. 

Masor Humes: Could the public at large, 
those who were not associated with the organi- 
zation, know the purpose of the organization 
from the name? 

Mr. McDermott: No, I do not suppose they 
could. 

Masor Humes: It was good campaign man- 
agement from your standpoint to organize in 


“PERSONAL LIBERTY” COMMERCIALIZED 195 


a way and under a name so that the public 
would not recognize the connection of the or- 
ganization with the liquor movement? That 
was good politics from your standpoint? 

Mr. McDermott: That is a question. It 
has not brought much result (4, p. 412). 


The use the brewers made of their ‘Liberty’ 
leagues and of their “Association of Commerce and 
Labor” was expansively described by Mr. Percy 
Andreae, organizer for the United States Brewers’ 
Association (4, p. 371). 

Explaining how effectively a more centralized 
system worked, he said: 


Gentlemen, take our organization in Ohio. 
I can go to the telephone here (Atlantic 
City), call up our headquarters at Cincinnati, 
and say: “I want that statement to be in the 
hands of the members of the Personal Liberty 
League of Ohio within twenty-four hours.” In 
twenty-four hours that statement will be in 
the hands of 150,000 people, voters in the State 
of Ohio, and among those 150,000 voters are 
several thousand who are good for a large num- 
ber of votes besides their own (4, p. 377). 


To-day, the Liberty League, Inc., Washington, 
D. C., also contributes to the Anti-Prohibition litera- 
ture. The writer is J. A. Danielson, whose material 
bears their name as publisher. This writer, in curi- 
ously commercial language, deplores the fact that 
“sood liquor” has been eliminated by Prohibition. 
He says: 


196 


PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


During the years of experimentation with 
this law we have learned that its so-called en- 
forcement eliminated good liquor, but that it 
cannot eliminate bad liquor. Prohibition has 
driven off the market reliable liquors, especially 
the milder and more wholesome grades, such 
as wine and beer, and it has flooded the country 
with substitutes that are concentrated to the 
killing point. There is something decidedly 
wrong with a law that quite easily eliminates 
good liquors, but is incapable of eliminating the 
inferior and harmful ones (36, p. 3). 


One can scarcely go over such a record of “per- 
sonal liberty” leagues, past and present, without 
realizing that, however sincerely used by innocent 
people, the “personal liberty” slogan is, in origin 
and effect, little more than a camouflage for the 
liberty of the brewers to resume their parasitic 
traffic. 


CHAPTER XV 
FurTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE BREWERS 


How Millions of Readers Were Reached 


In the previous chapter some account was given 
of how the compact organization of the brewing in- 
terests, just prior to War-time and National Prohi- 
bition, exploited the honest wet sentiment of the 
country for their own advantage. The record of 
the United States Senate which so thoroughly ex- 
posed their propaganda, mixed as it was with dis- 
loyalty to the war administration, reveals further 
details of their methods of appealing to popular 
sentiment in behalf of the commercial liquor 
traffic. 

The National News Bureau of the brewers sup- 
plied a weekly news letter to 5,300 of the 12,000 
weekly papers of the country, all published in the 
small towns, with a paid circulation of 5,300,000, 
and with an estimated reading by 15,000,000 people. 
The actual pieces of literature reaching readers by 
means of this bureau and the foreign-language press 
alone was computed by the brewers to be 431,600,- 
000 annually, namely (4, p. 1252; p. 15): 

197 


198 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


Reproductions of personal liberty 

articles 26 times a year...... 156,000,000 
5,300,000 reproductions of our 

news letter in 5,300 weekly 

papers having a total circula- 

tion of 5,300,000 52 times a 

VOCAL aan Uae ia nic he sates ars 275,600,000 


Opel eae pai celal pans Alesis 431,600,000 


One wonders how many million “reproductions 
of personal liberty articles,’ written by honest, inno- 
cent Wets to-day, are being circulated at the expense 
of brewers. I have personally seen some such. 


Labor’s “Friend” 

Articles in labor papers, over a seemingly disin- 
terested writer’s personal signature, but secretly 
financed by the brewers, “contributed their share in 
arousing organized labor to opposition of Prohibi- 
tion,” according to records taken from the office of 
the Brewers’ Association in 1919 (4, p. 456). 

A complete collection of the “personal liberty” 
articles by Percy Andreae, the active organizer of 
the Brewers’ Association, was published in book 
form by a publishing firm, and a copy supplied to 
“all the libraries of the country,’—the entire cost 
of the undertaking paid for by the National Whole- 
sale Liquor Dealers’ Association (4, p. 1253). 

An address entitled “The Need of a Personal 
Liberty Day,” delivered by a United States Brewers’ 
Association representative, was considered by them 


FURTHER ACTIVITIES OF BREWERS _ 199 


of such merit that 1t was given wide publicity, and 
many State Brewers’ Associations “used it exten- 
sively in their campaigns” (4, p. 458). 

A play, produced in a number of cities and called 
“The Passing of Hans Dippel” (4, p. 1253), pre- 
sented the story of a hard-working German saloon- 
keeper of the highest respectability being gradually 
ruined by opponents promoting the dry movement, 
and his business destroyed without compensation. 
In a motion picture, beer was presented as the friend 
of the worker, a nourishing stimulant, in the form 
of “Liquid Bread” (4, p. 67). 


Use of the Chautauquas—‘Without Creating 
Antagonism” 


The Brewers’ “Publication Committee’ put it 
this way: 


Outside of the large centers of population, 
there is perhaps no organization more impor- 
tant in shaping the sentiment of thoughtful 
people than the Chautauquas, of which there 
are now some 5,000 throughout the country. 
It would probably be impossible for us to 
arrange a hearing with them directly, unless 
occasionally in the form of a debate the value 
of which is distinctly obvious. We have, how- 
ever, been experimenting for the past four 
months in a number of principal Chautauquas 
in the Middle Western States through the 
medium of an organization that advocates 
the peaceful solution of all vexed problems of 


200 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


the day, by the application of sympathy, re- 
spect, and cooperation. Its platform is that the 
reconstruction of society depends upon the indi- 
vidual rectitude, rather than upon civic or com- 
mercial revolution. The argument against 
sumptuary legislation fits in very well with this 
program, and has been brought in, incidentally, 
without creating the antagonism that it would 
af given special prominence. This organization 
has been engaged in booking speakers for the 
next year, both in Chautauqua meetings and 
in the churches, colleges, lyceums, etc. 


And the report adds: 


You will, of course, understand that the mat- 
ter is of a confidential nature, and that the suc- 
cess of the movement would be destroyed by 
the exploitations of it (4). 


German Propaganda—“‘No Suspicion of the 
Influences” 


The brewers’ interest in German propaganda 
during the War and their donations of money to the 
German-American Alliance whose charter the Amer- 
ican Government revoked after an investigation 
(4, pp. 1255; 27), are now matters of widespread 
knowledge because of the fact that some of the 
propaganda ringleaders went to jail. The effort of 
pro-German factions to control one of the great 
metropolitan dailies in order to use its vast re- 
sources, local and national, for the promotion of 
German interests, included a plan for articles agi- 


FURTHER ACTIVITIES OF BREWERS 201 


tating “Personal Liberty.” Alien Property Cus- 
todian A. Mitchell Palmer, said: 


It is around these great brewery organizations 
owned by rich men, almost all of them German 
by birth and sympathy, at least before we en- 
tered the War, that have grown up the societies 
and the organizations of this country intended 
to keep young German immigrants from be- 
coming real Americans (4, p. 10). 

In spite of the fact that, as one of the promoters 
put it, “politically tne transaction would have to 
be handled with the utmost delicacy, that no suspi- 
cion of the influences behind it should be allowed to 
reach the public” (4, p. 12), it became a matter for 
the courts, with subsequent indictment and con- 
viction of the leaders of the ring. 


John Koren: Brewers’ Writer 

Prominent propagandist against Prohibition was 
Mr. John Koren, at one time President of the 
American Statistical Association. He passed with 
many people as an earnest, dispassionate, scientific 
student. Deploring the evils of alcohclic drink, and 
agreeing with the Prohibition workers at almost 
every step along the line, he sidestepped only at the 
last point—Prohibition. He was concerned with the 
“Inherent Frailties of Prohibition” (67, p. 52). The 
proper way out of what he called “this painful, 
humiliating, besmirching, and dangerous situation 
(Prohibition) is to adopt the recommendation of 


202 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


the Constitutional Liberty League of Massachu- 
setts for a popular referendum.” 

“TI was responsible for the retaining [at $5,000 a 
year] of Mr. Koren,” Mr. Hugh F. Fox said, when, 
in 1919, as Secretary of the United States Brewers’ 
Association, he was questioned regarding the rela- 
tion of his Association to German Propaganda (4, 
Diol 

Mr. Feigenspan, President of the United States 
Brewers’ Association, testified that there were “half- 
a dozen or so” writers (4, p. 60) employed on a 
similar basis. 

Mr. Gordon says in his ““T'wo Footnotes to the 
History of the Anti-Alcohol Movement” that Mr. 
Koren is the personal friend of Mr. Fox, who believes 
in him up to the hilt. In 1910 Koren was a wel- 
come speaker at the Brewers’ Congress at Atlantic 
City. Signed articles by him are reproduced in the 
brewers’ year books,—no slight mark of confidence. 
Other anonymous articles in the same year books 
are, if internal evidence is worth anything, the 
product of the same pen (385, p. 41). 

The American Issue, of November 27 and De- 
cember 18, 1915, in parallel columns showed the 
striking similarity of Mr. Koren’s writings with 
those that appeared in the brewers’ year book. 


Brewers Rally the Women with “Inberty” 
As Prohibition spread, and the brewers were mak- 
ing every frantic effort possible to save their busi- 


FURTHER ACTIVITIES OF BREWERS = 203 


ness existence and that of the saloon, the thought 
of women voters gave them pause. By 1919 they 
decided that it would be expedient, since women 
had got the vote in spite of their opposition—that 
it would be the better part of valor—to make 
an attempt to get them into the drinking fold, and 
Mr. Percy Andreae, the master organizer for the 
United States Brewers’ Association, hit upon a plan 
of turning this female liability into a happy asset. 
A “sincere attempt” to mobilize women Mr. Andreae 
believed necessary to the brewing industry, and he 
spoke impressively of the “magnitude of our task.” 
He had reported to the brewers in 1913: 


Women’s liberty leagues have already been 
started in some of the larger cities. The plan 
is to ask every organization interested in this 
movement to form its women’s auxiliary, and 
to enlist the sympathy, the enthusiasm, and the 
active influence of our women throughout the 
country. ... Now, I have the strongest belief 
in the efficiency of our women, etc. (4, p. 360). 


Hugh F. Fox, Secretary of the United States 
Brewers’ Association, also had a scheme for exploit- 
ing the women. For helping to save an industry, 
described by Mr. Andreae as “face to face with abso- 
lute destruction,” and facing the “incontrovertible 
truth” that “currying the favor of political parties, 
enlisting the support of political leaders, and rely- 
ing on the promises of political wire pullers would 
not save them from ultimate destruction” (4 


204 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


p. 361), Mr. Fox, speaking in 1913, had the follow- 
ing to suggest: 


Something along the line of a café-club that 
would serve as a family resort is needed. With 
the spread of woman suffrage, the women are 
going to pass judgment upon the saloon, and 
I do not believe that a place which is a repu- 
table family resort is going to be opposed by 
the ordinary women (4, p. 365). 


Again, the late Mr. Robert A. Wood’s knowledge 
of the women’s drinking place comes into evidence. 
On this question he stated: 


These advocates urge that we should have 
beer and wine sold to men and women in cafés, 
after the so-called “harmless” European model. 
Here again Licensing Board experience may 
shed light. Under the old order in Boston the 
majority of such places were hardly more nor 
less than licensed market places for prostitu- 
tion. The sale of liquor was largely incidental. 
And, be it noted, only the lighter alcoholic 
drinks were current. These were not places in 
which young men and young women got drunk. 
They had only such measure of alcohol as would 
blur the better sensibilities and spur the worse. 
Beer and light wine would amply suffice to 
bring back these open abominations in our 
cities. . . . (68, p. 126). 


Of women and drink, Charles W. Stiles, of the 
United States Public Health Service, says: 


During the war I was actively occupied with 
the anti-venereal campaign in protecting the 


FURTHER ACTIVITIES OF BREWERS 205 


troops, and this experience persuaded me that 
strong drink and prostitution (hence venereal 
diseases) are Siamese twins (37, p. 39). 


Inquor Interests Still Active 


“Liquor interests are still alive,” according to Sen- 
ator Arthur Capper (66, p. 160). In 1923 he wrote: 


Approximately forty organizations have 
sprung into existence since the advent of Na- 
tional Prohibition. The principal one of these 
organizations is the Association Against the 
Prohibition Amendment,* which was active in 
a number of States during the recent congres- 
sional elections in an attempt to defeat mem- 
bers of Congress who had supported the exist- 
ing Prohibition laws. All of these organizations 
distinctly disavow any connection with the 
former liquor interests. Since the brewery in- 
terests would be the principal beneficiaries 
under any liberalization of the Prohibition 
law,* it will be extremely difficult for these 
organizations to prevent their activities from 
being used by the liquor interests for the fur- 
therance of their aims. 

In several instances, notably in Ohio and 
Wisconsin, former liquor organizations* have 
been working with them for the promotion of 
a common purpose. Congressman Clyde Kelly, 
of the Thirty-third Congressional District of 
Pennsylvania, recently said of the activities of 
the liquor interests in their efforts to defeat him 
for reélection: 


* The italics are mine. 


206 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


“In my own district I saw the power of the 
outlaws and the power of the people. The 
Allegheny County Liquor Dealers’ Association,” 
whose very existence is an insulting challenge 
to the Constitution and laws of this country, 
officially indorsed my opponent and supplied 
him with large sums of money, levied from 
license holders and bootleggers. Seventy-five 
thousand dollars was expended and every 
method known to polecat fighters was brought 
into use.” 

We find in reports an item that the distillers, in 
convention at Chicago on January 7, 1919, agreed to 
raise one billion dollars if necessary to beat the 1920 
National Prohibition law (38, p. 377). In 1919, 
the brewers of Philadelphia had decided to con- 
tinue the manufacture of 2.75 per cent beer, and 
passed resolutions declaring that such beer was non- 
intoxicating (38, p. 379). In the same year, the 
Connecticut Brewers’ Association had announced 
that they would begin manufacture of beer of 2.75 
per cent alcoholic content immediately (38, p. 379). 
Seven breweries operated by the Central Pennsylva- 
nia Brewing Company had begun the brewing of 
beer (38, p. 379), and the Brewers’ Association of 
Massachusetts had adopted resolutions reeommend- 
ing that brewers begin the manufacture of 2.75 
per cent beer (88, p. 379). In 1920, the Massa- 
chusetts State Legislature passed a bill providing for 
2.75 per cent beer, but the measure was promptly 


* The italics are mine. 


FURTHER ACTIVITIES OF BREWERS = 207 


vetoed by Governor Calvin Coolidge (38, pp. 383, 
384). Also, in 1920, the New York Legislature suc- 
ceeded in passing a 2.75 per cent beer bill, but the 
reaction against the measure was such that it was 
repealed in 1921 (39, 1925, p. 122). 

The brewery interests have not been destroyed. 


On May 15, 1924, there were still in existence 
991 breweries, although 130 breweries had been 
seized; 541 indictments prepared and_for- 
warded to the Department of Justice; 172 bills 
for injunction prepared; 109 libels prepared 
and filed; 148 criminal prosecutions instituted; 
133 convictions secured and pleas of guilty en- 
tered by brewery corporations and individuals; 
fines of $306,750 imposed upon brewers; and 
since July 1, 1921, $3,382,067 tendered by brew- 
ers in compromise of civil liability, and 
accepted. There are a large number of 
important wine cases pending involving illegal 
diversions of wines from bonded premises, and 
against sacramental wine dealers (39, 1924, 
p19). 
' In short, then, the Liquor Interests in general and 
the Brewing Interests in particular, have always 
conducted concealed propaganda which has deceived 
and misled many good people, as well as made use 
of their names, organizations, and publications— 
and those liquor interests are still alive and organ- 
ized. 


GHAPTHREX VI 
PROPOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 


“Modification” 


In the preceding chapters I have tried to show 
that Prohibition is liberative, not restrictive, in set- 
ting free human energy and happiness, that it should 
keep us free from the thraldom of a drug habit, from 
the paralysis of inefficiency, from the political dom- 
ination of the saloon. I know nothing that can add 
so much to the liberties of our people as a whole 
as Prohibition. America will never be truly free 
until wholly free from the slavery to alcohol that 
now limits and endangers our freedom to exercise 
the faculties with which “nature and nature’s God” 
endowed us. 

The next question is, What is the best way to 
secure this greater liberty to live? In other words, 
what is the best way to cut ourselves free from the 
evils of aleohol? Will a modification of the Volstead 
act permitting light wines and beer do this? 

Assuming, for the moment, that we could modify 
this act without also modifying the Eighteenth 
Amendment, the answer, it seems clear to me, is 
distinctly in the negative; first, because so-called 

208 


PROPOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 209 


light wines and beer are plenty strong enough to do 
great harm, and, second, because experience has 
shown that to bring back light wines and beer would 
bring back stronger drinks as well. It would bring 
back the saloon in full force, unless our Government 
played the rum seller. 

Georgia, in 1908-16, tried the experiment of for- 
bidding distilled liquor, but of allowing light or 
near beer. It failed. Judge Broyles, then of the 
police court, Atlanta, said: 


A near-beer law is practically unenforceable, 
as you can not have a chemist with every barrel 
to see that the beer is light. Besides, men can 
get drunk on 2 per cent beer if they take 
enough of it. 


Government Distribution 


Government distribution, also, has been tried, and 
usually has failed. It was competently denied at 
the Prohibition hearings in Washington during 1926 
that this system has cured some of the abuses of 
Prohibition in Canada. The main witnesses in favor 
of the dispensary system admitted that it did not 
diminish, but rather increased, the total alcohol con- 
sumed. 

As to this system, Mrs. Elizabeth Tilton asks the 
following pertinent questions: 

No. 1. If the Quebec, or Dispensary System, 


is a panacea, how comes it that the chief 
Catholic organ of the Province of Quebec says 


210 


PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


that the government by putting its seal of 
approval upon drinking has almost annihilated 
the work of the Church through years of teach- 
ing temperance and sobriety? 

No. 2. How comes it, if the cure for boot- 
legging, or even its diminution, is the Quebec 
System, that bootlegging in Quebec is on the 
increase and complaints of liquor law violations 
have almost trebled between 1922 and 1925? 

No. 3. How comes it, if government sale de- 
creases consumption, that government liquor 
shops have increased from 64 in 1922 to 90 in 
1925? (Benjamin Spence.) 

No. 4. How comes it that, if Prohibition 
causes crime to increase and government sale 
causes it to decrease, we.read in the Montreal 
Press such headlines as “Montreal the Mecca 
for Crooks” and again we read “A veritable 
avalanche of outlawry, hold-ups, robberies, has 
descended upon the city’’? 

No. 5. How comes it, if government sale is 
any sort of solution, that a Mayor of Winni- 
peg where they had Prohibition and now have 
government sale says “while conditions under 
Prohibition were bad, the present conditions are 
a thousand times worse’’? 

No. 6. Lastly, if government sale decreases 
drinking, how comes it that the Province of 
Quebec, according to Ben Spence, consumed in 
1925, 27,369 gallons more of absolute alcohol 
than in 1924? 


Issue in Fall Elections of 1926 


Examining the accumulation of proposed meas- 
ures and resolutions that prompted the 1926 Pro- 


PROPOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 211 


hibition hearings in Washington, we come upon old 
familiar phrases, in bills variously providing for a 
national referendum; for abolishing the one-half of 
one per cent alcoholic limit and substituting a limit 
to be known as “intoxicating in fact’’; for repeal of 
the Volstead act; for allowing the manufacture and 
use of high-proof spirits for other than beverage 
purposes; for changing the powers of Congress from 
“Prohibition” to “Regulation”; for striking out one- 
half of one per cent and substituting 2.75 per cent; 
for allowing 4 per cent beer (1, pp. 4-6). 

Modifications according to these proposals form 
an issue, not only in the fall congressional cam- 
paign of 1926, but in state referenda in New York, 
Wisconsin, Montana, Nevada, Colorado, and else- 
where. 

As the struggle centers chiefly around the admis- 
sion by law of an alcoholic solution of at least 2.75 
per cent in beer, the fact of its intoxicating quality 
at such percentage is in point. 


Character of 2.75 Per Cent Beer 

To go back to fundamentals on this question, we 
revert to the important scientific work on the sub- 
ject done by Benedict and Miles. In Chapter VIII 
we saw, in a general way, how these investigators 
had proved that small doses of alcohol are injurious. 
Here we shall cite their specific work on 2.75 per 
cent beer. Dr. Francis G. Benedict of the Carnegie 
Institution of Washington says: 


we are ali familiar with the sense OL WeEil- 
being after a meal. This is a common experi- 
ence after taking practically all foods. Alcohol 
produces to a degree approximated by none of 
the regular food materials psychic effects of 
rather far-reaching significance. Certain of 
these, such as buoyancy and euphoria, are 
accountable for much of the pleasure derived 
from alcohol. Even its deep narcosis is enjoyed 
by those who would “drawn their sorrows”! 
A study of the physiological effects of mod- 
erate amounts of alcohol is essential, before 
forming an opinion as to whether this or that 
quantity is scientifically permissible. Social 
environment changes. Urban life has become 
intense. Great mechanical agencies involving 
human control now enter into human activi- 
ties as never before. Man’s normal reactions 
to such environment, and his reactions after 
“permissible amounts” of alcohol, require exam- 
ination before a standard of 1864 (Dr. Anstie’s) 
or indeed of 1903 (Prof. Abel’s) can be consid- 
ered as permissible in 1925 (40). 

With the prevailing tendency to dilute alco- 
holic liquors one would say: “Is it not possible 
to prepare a pleasurable beverage with an alco- 
holic content about one-half that of beer?” 
(40). 

Dr. Walter R. Miles, also of the Carnegie Institu- 
tion of Washington, conducted researches in an en- 
deavor to meet exactly the point raised by Doctor 
Benedict. Dr. Miles states: 


The question of whether alcohol taken in 
very dilute form, for example 2.75 per cent 


PROPOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 213 


solution by weight, exerts a measurable effect 
upon neuromuscular efficiency as determined 
under laboratory conditions is of two-fold im- 
portance: In the first place, as a scientific ques- 
tion, the answer will contribute to the under- 
standing of the mechanism through which 
alcohol exerts its influence on the nervous sys- 
tem, since it seems probably true that the dilu- 
tion in the beverage is similar to the dilution 
of the alcohol by the contents of the stomach. 
Secondly, the problem is one of practical inter- 
est, since the vast majority of the individuals 
throughout the world who use alcohol take it in 
rather dilute forms (26). 

For his investigation of the 2.75 alcoholic per- 
centage, Dr. Miles used first one subject well prac- 
ticed in neuromuscular measurements. The gen- 
eralized result of eleven series of experiments with 
this percentage of alcohol, each experiment lasting 
4 hours, was that. the subject’s efficiency in all tests 
was lower than normal in the 2 hours following the 
ingestion of the alcohol dose (26, p. 202). 

In studies of 30-minute periods (26, p. 272), 
swaying of the body was 23.4 per cent increased by 
2.75 per cent alcoholic beverage. Coordination for 
pursuitmeter was 17.8 per cent less adequate, the 
eye-reaction time was 4.4 per cent slower and the 
eye-movement velocity 5.7 per cent slower; also code 
letters transliterated were 7.0 per cent decreased. 

The same experiments were repeated on a group 
of men selected at random, and the results “thor- 
oughly substantiated the direction and approximate 


214 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


intensity of the more extended results reported on 
the one trained subject” (26, p. 260), and were also 
“in essential agreement with those obtained in the 
series of typewriting experiments in which the 
alcohol dosage was much more concentrated” (26, 
p. 260). 

In these studies with the group, the amplitude of 
the knee-jerk was decreased 21.0 per cent by the 
2.75 per cent alcohol solution in the first two hours 
after ingestion; the swaying of the body was in- 
creased 11.0 per cent; the coordination for pursuit- 
meter was 14.3 less adequate, and the code let- 
ters transliterated were 2.3 decreased (26, p. 273). 


It will be difficult to challenge the conclu- 
sion (said Dr. Miles) that these changes repre- 
sent other than a decrease in organic efficiency 
due to depressive action of ethyl alcohol, inas- 
much as such charges are regularly associated 
with decreased reflex irritability, slower reac- 
tion, less keen, 7.e., higher sensory thresholds, 
slower muscular movements, less adequate and 
accurate muscular control, and less agile mental 
operations. . . . (26, p. 272). 

There 1s no longer room for doubt in refer- 
erence to the toxic action of alcoholic beverages 
as weak as 2.75 per cent by weight.* (26, 
p. 276). 


“War” beer, that is, beer containing 2.75 per cent 
alcohol by weight (3.5 per cent by volume)—so- 
called “light” beer—was also tested by Professor 


* The italics are mine. 


PROPOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 215 


H. L. Hollingworth, of Columbia University (41, 2, 
15, 1921), on six men during a period of two weeks. 

From the taking of 32 to 40 grams of alcohol in 
this form (the equivalent of 3 to 4 glasses of beer), he 
found that pulse-rate increased 8 per cent, steadiness 
of the outstretched arm decreased 68 per cent, tap- 
ping-rate of the forearm decreased 7 per cent, and 
coordination in placing a stylus in small holes de- 
creased 6 per cent. 


Expert Opinion on 2.75 Per Cent Beer 

The following statements as to the intoxicating 
quality of 2.75 per cent beer have been culled by 
Miss Cora Frances Stoddard, unless otherwise indi- 
cated, from affidavits by scientific men submitted 
at the Hearings on the Prohibition Enforcement bill, 
now known as the Volstead Act, when it was being 
considered by the Sub-committee of the Committee 
on the Judiciary of the United States Senate in 
1919 (42, 4, 2, 1926). 

Arthur Dean Bevan, M.D., then President of the 
American Medical Association, made the following 
statement: 


The question as to whether or not beer con- 
taining 2.75 per cent alcohol is intoxicating 1s 
not only a matter of scientific medical opinion, 
but a matter of common knowledge and com- 
mon sense. It is a matter of common knowledge 
that beer which has been heretofore sold in 
the United States, containing from 3.5 to 4.25 
per cent alcohol, is definitely intoxicating. 


Here Can be apsolutely NO adoudt out that peer 
containing 2.75 per cent alcohol is an intoxi- 
cating beverage in that an individual can be- 
come drunk on the amount that is frequently 
consumed. 


Dr. William A. Evans, Professor of Sanitary 
Science, Northwestern University Medical School, 
from 1907 to 1911 Commissioner of Health of Chi- 
cago, Editor of “Health Department” of The Chi- 
cago Tribune, stated: 


It is my opinion that beer containing 2.75 
per cent alcohol by weight is intoxicating. 


William Geagley, Assistant Analyst for the Food 
and Drug Department of the State of Michigan 
stated: 


Deponent knows that such beer (3 per cent by 
volume) is intoxicating by reason of his many 
analyses conducted for criminal cases in this 
State; and he further knows that such beer is 
intoxicating by having tasted, sampled, and 
drunk the same, and that it has an intoxicat- 
ing effect upon him personally. 


Reid Hunt, M.D., Professor in the Department of 
Pharmacology in the Medical Department of Har- 
vard University, and formerly of the Public Health 
Laboratory of the United States Public Health 
Service, after reviewing the results of careful experi- 
mental work with alcohol given in somewhat less 
than 2.75 per cent strength, stated: 


PROPOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 217 


If by the term “intoxicating liquor” is meant 
a liquor which contains sufficient alcohol to 
cause, when the liquor is taken in amounts 
which are not unusually taken by men, distinct 
effects on the nervous system, the effects being 
characteristic of and due to the contained alco- 
hol, I am of the opinion that beer containing 
2.75 per cent by weight of alcohol should be 
classed as an intoxicating beverage. 


George O. Higley, professor of chemistry, Ohio 
Wesleyan University, stated as his belief: 


1. That the drinking of beer containing 3 
per cent alcohol by volume often results 
in hilarious outbursts followed by surly be- 
havior. 

2. That in the stage of this excitation, often 
termed the “jolly” condition, the drinker loses 
his self-control, and often his self-respect, his 
actions becoming careless and even immoral. 

3. That a larger dose of this same liquor may 
cause the subject to become quarrelsome. 

4. That emotional manifestations of fear, 
jealousy, and hatred may be aroused without 
cause, so that crimes are committed. 

5. That the subject who shows any of these 
departures from his normal condition is “intoxi- 
cated” in the proper meaning of that term 
though he does not stagger and is not “drunk’”’ 
in the popular meaning of that term. 

6. That he believes that a court may very 
properly hold as intoxicating not only whisky, 
brandy, and gin, but also beer, even if it con- 
tains alcohol to the amount of only 3 per cent 
by volume. 


218 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


The Chaos of Diverse State Alcoholic Standards 


Presumably the same amount of alcohol that in- 
toxicates persons of other states intoxicates the 
citizens of New York State. The condition of chaos 
that would ensue if the alcoholic percentage per- 
missible in beverages were left to be variously de- 
termined by the separate states is well described 
by Senator William E. Borah, who comments on the 
proposal in the New York rum referendum as fol- 
lows: 


That would delegate or leave to the respective 
States the power and the authority to say 
whether or not a particular beverage was intox1- 
cating. If the State fixes a percentage which 
makes it intoxicating, what is the Government 
of the United States to dv? The Government of 
the United States is to remain silent... . 

The great debate that took place prior to the 
Civil War was over that one great question, 
whether or not the States should determine 
what laws should be enforced and what should 
not, under the Constitution of the United 
States. .. 

Suppose the State of New York fixes a per- 
centage of alcoholic content such as to be intoxi- 
cating. Shall the Congress of the United States 
and the officials of the United States, the 
custodians of the Constitution, acquiesce in 
the proposition and connive at its disregard of 
the Constitution? Shall we leave it to the 
State of New York, or to the State of Idaho, 
or to the State of California, to say when and 
how and to what extent the Constitution of the 


PROFOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 219 


United States shall be applied and enforced? It 
would make 48 standards. You might have a 
standard of 7 per cent alcohol in beverages in 
New York, and if so, they could ship their 
product to every State of the Union. 

You might have a standard of 2 per cent 
alcohol in beverages in the State of Louisiana, 
and yet New York could send her 7 per cent 
product into the State of Louisiana against the 
standard which they had established there. We 
would have 48 different standards, no one 
guarding or protecting or enforcing or maintain- 
ing the Constitution, but 48 different States 
applying their different rules. 

All this disturbance and all this debate are 
not for the purpose of securing non-intoxicating 
liquor. The people who are insisting upon this 
change are not insisting upon the change for 
the purpose of getting more non-intoxicating 
liquor; but wines and beer such as will give 
them their intoxicating drinks are to be allowed. 

If this question is to be presented to the peo- 
ple, let us present it in such a way that it will 
raise the real issue, and either give or deny to 
them that for which they are asking, to wit, 
intoxicating liquor (30). 


In a later speech, Senator Borah said also: 


The Republican party was organized to stand 
for the Federal Constitution against this plea 
of “discretion” as to its enforcement in the dif- 
ferent States. Mr. Lincoln, its real founder, 
stood firm against those of the North who would 
nullify the Constitution by leaving it to the 
States to “enforce it in that locality with its 


220 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


own peculiar condition’—as illustrated with 
reference to the Fugitive Slave Law. He stood 
against the South who under Calhoun would 
enforce the Constitution “in that locality with 
its own peculiar condition’”—as illustrated with 
reference to the tariff law of 1828, and later 
on the slave cause. 

Now we have the leaders of the Republican 
party in the great Commonwealth of New York 
contending that they shall be permitted to en- 
force the Highteenth Amendment “in that 
locality with its own peculiar conditions.” 

To such dire expediency we resort and upon 
such transparent sophistry we would rely 
(30, New York Tribune, 7, 26, 1926). 

We conclude that “modification” really means 
evasion or nullification, that so-called “light” wines, 
and even beer are intoxicating both medically and 
legally, and cannot be legally admitted under the 
Eighteenth Amendment. 


The New York xeferendum 


On the face of it, the plan for a referendum in 
New York State this fall (and the corresponding 
proposals in other states) represents an honest at- 
tempt to ascertain public sentiment on Prohibition. 
Why should not the people have the chance to vote 
on the question? Why any opposition to the idea? 

But a closer examination shows that the question 
is not as simple as it seems. 

First, if the idea of a referendum is sound how 
does it happen that the question of Prohibition 


alone should be so submitted! yyouid lt be Propet, 
for instance, for New York State to submit to a 
popular referendum the question as to Woman’s 
Suffrage as provided for by the Nineteenth Amend- 
ment, the suggestion being that each state is to 
interpret that Amendment as it sees fit? Would it 
be proper for the State of South Carolina to sub- 
mit to popular referendum the question as to 
negro franchise, the suggestion being that each state 
should interpret the Fifteenth Amendment as it sees 
fit? 

Evidently such referenda would really represent 
an effort to nullify the Federal Constitution. The 
Civil War was fought to prevent such a degree of 
states’ rights. The Fifteenth Amendment has been 
largely (and unwarrantably) nullified, but not by 
such presumptuous methods. We cannot, in de- 
cency, today ask our National Government to abdi- 
cate and let New York set a limit of 5 per cent or 
10 per cent on alcoholic beverages while the rest of 
the country has one-half of one per cent. New 
York has more representation in Congress than any 
other state and has a perfect right to elect, if it 
wishes, such representatives as will try to modify 
the Volstead Act. But it certainly has no right to 
ask the nation to nullify that act within the borders 
of New York. 

Secondly, it would add to that disrespect for 
law which the very proponents of such referenda 
profess to deplore. I agree with them that we have 


222 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


too much disrespect for law already. Granted, for 
the sake of argument, that the Eighteenth Amend- 
ment ought never to have been in the Constitution 
and that it creates the disrespect for law claimed by 
its opponents, if we are now to leave it in, any 
proposal to allow an individual state to nullify its 
plain provisions or those of the enforcement acts 
tends greatly to increase that disrespect for law. 

Thirdly, such a referendum is futile. Granted, 
for the sake of argument, that it will faithfully pic- 
ture public sentiment in New York State, it has 
no binding effect any more than any other straw 
vote. 

Fourthly, such a referendum tends to confuse and 
mislead thousands, perhaps millions, of people into 
imagining that the State has powers which it has 
not. 

Fifthly, the result of such a straw vote is sure 
not to be representative. The number of votes cast 
will probably be small, the dry votes especially. 
In a straw vote the “outs” are always more fully 
represented than the “ins.” Many who believe 
in Prohibition will fail to vote simply because they 
have Prohibition already. In fact, rather than 
write to such voters, at a cost of several hundred 
thousand dollars, urging them to go to the polls, the 
dry organizations have emphatically preferred to 
express their disapproval and contempt for this 
attempt of the Wets to put them “in a hole” by a 
voter’s boycott, and have passed resolutions against 
all non-binding referenda, at the same time urging 


PROPOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 223 


the voters to participate in all genuine and binding 
referenda as in Montana, Colorado, and California. 
Until a binding referendum is provided for New 
York, why dangle before the voters any counterfeit 
referendum? 

Sixthly, the New York referendum is fundamen- 
tally insincere in the suggestion that New York 
should be allowed to fix a far higher limit of aleo- 
holic content that one-half of one per cent and 
yet make believe that such “light wines and beer” 
are “non-intoxicating in fact.” Such beverages are 
“non-intoxicating in fact” only in the fond imagina- 
tion of those who want them for the very ‘‘kick” 
which makes them intoxicating. Let no one mis- 
take. The referendum aims to secure intoxicating 
liquors by means of a legal pretense that they are 
non-intoxicating. 

The straightforward, honest, way would be to pro- 
pose repealing the Eighteenth Amendment. It is 
just because they know this cannot be done that the 
proponents of a referendum want to make faces at 
the Constitution for propaganda purposes only. 

In short, the truth is these referenda are (1) nulli- 
fying, (2) disrespectful of the Constitution, (3) 
futile, (4) misleading, (5) unrepresentative, and 
(6) insincere. | 

The conclusion of this chapter is that, none of 
the wet proposals to modify the Volstead act is a 
practical proposition, since each requires a violation 
of the Eighteenth Amendment. 


GHAPT HR XV EL 
PROHIBITION CAN BE ENFORCED 


Senate Sub-committee Rejects “Modification” 


After the extensive hearings in Washington in 
April, 1926, on the proposals to modify the Volstead 
act, and after the evidence had been briefed by the 
Wets and Drys, the Sub-committee on Prohibition 
of the United States Committee on the Judiciary 
returned its report in support of the Eighteenth 
Amendment as follows: 


The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitu- 
tion of the United States was ratified according 
to proclamation of the Secretary of State, Janu- 
ary 29, 1919. We believe this amendment to 
be morally right and economically wise. 

So long as this amendment is a part of our 
fundamental law, it is the duty of all officers, 
legislative, executive, and judicial, to aid in its 
enforcement. 

The advocates of modification of the present 
Prohibition laws propose to weaken the same. 
They seek directly or indirectly to authorize the 
manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages. 
This is contrary to the spirit and intent of the 
Eighteenth Amendment. 

The Constitution is a grant of power. Those 

224 


PY WWVsn OHhiwy 244444 UUUA BSAA VPWUWYSSL 2444440 WEY 240VUU VU 
be transcended. 

A national referendum is not provided for 
and it is our belief that it was not the inten- 
tion of the framers of the Constitution that a 
national referendum would ever be attempted. 
No laws have been enacted which provide a 
machinery for the holding of such a referendum. 

Wherefore, your sub-committee recommends 
that all of the above named joint resolutions 
and Senate bills and amendments thereto, be 
indefinitely postponed (48, 6, 4, 1926). 

Such a verdict was hardly calculated to encourage 
the Wets in the Fall campaign of 1926. State refer- 
enda on National Prohibition are futile, and the 
Judiciary Sub-committee of the Senate declares that 
all talk of modifying the Volstead act is futile, 
because it contemplates passing an unconstitutional 
law. 


Modification Laws of No Avail 


This brings us to the next stage in the argument, 
that Congress can not stultify itself by passing an 
unconstitutional law which pretends that ight wines 
and beer are non-intoxicating. For in the last chap- 
ter the weight of scientific and legal testimony was 
shown to be against it. 

The present situation is demoralizing enough, 
whether or not it is as demoralizing as was the 
saloon before Prohibition. But neither demoraliza- 
tion could compare for a moment with the utter 


226 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


demoralization that would result if we submitted 
to the demand for liquor “with a kick in it,” under 
the pretense that it is non-intoxicating. 

The present limit of one-half of 1 per cent pur- 
posely draws the line on the safe side just as the 
“danger line’ on the platform of a country railway 
station is purposely drawn on the safe side. Only 
those who want to get on the unsafe side can 
object. 

Exactly how much above one-half of 1 per cent 
we could go without making what could reasonably 
be called an intoxicating drink would be difficult to 
establish. But this, too, 1s an idle question. For 
the one aim of those who wish light wines and beer, 
whether they realize it or not, is to cross that non- 
intoxicating line, wherever it is, and to secure at 
least a mild intoxicant—something with a real 
“kick.” To raise the limit to three-fourths of 1 
per cent or to 1 per cent would not satisfy them. 
The only thing that would satisfy them would not 
satisfy the Eighteenth Amendment. Those advo- 
cating an amendment to the Volstead act permit- 
ting light wines and beer without modifying the 
Constitution are either dishonest with themselves or 
with the public; for they are leading the public to 
expect something impossible of attainment, or, at 
any rate, unconstitutional. If, on the other hand, 
they advocate merely increasing the alcoholic con- 
tent up to the limit that will pass muster as non- 
intoxicating, they will get no “light wines” at all, 


PROHIBITION CAN BE ENFORCED — 227 


for these run over 10 per cent, nor even any beer 
that a beer drinker would call beer. 


Repeal of Eighteenth Amendment Impossible 

Evidently the only legal method of introducing 
light wines and beer is through amending the 
Highteenth Amendment, to permit these milder 
intoxicants. But such an amendment is quite out 
of the range of practical possibilities. 

Whether the Prohibition sentiment has gained or 
lost during the last year of the Anti-Prohibition 
movement, no one pretends that it has lost enough 
to have the slightest chance of repealing the 
Eighteenth Amendment, and: few reasonable people 
even pretend to believe that it will ever get that far. 
We must not forget that there are only six states 
to-day which may properly be called wet, that before 
National Prohibition came, thirty-five states had 
already adopted State Prohibition and that only 
thirteen states are needed to block repeal of the 
Eighteenth Amendment. Is there any Wet optimis- 
tic enough to imagine that he and his friends 
can convert all but thirteen states to his way of 
thinking? 


We Must Enforce 


If, then, the only method of bringing out light 
wines and beer is to repeal the Eighteenth Amend- 
ment, and if this is impossible, the only honorable 
course left is to enforce the law and take full advan- 


NE NE MER RRR URE RRR SEE OUUEEUIEEEY, LEIUULTIIC Willie 
that will bring about, to say nothing of better 
health, better morals, and greater national self- 
respect. 


We Can Enforce 


But we are told that enforcement is impossible. 
Those who say this'are for the most part those who 
want it to be impossible. Experience proves the 
contrary. It took a quarter of a century in Kansas 
to make Prohibition decently effective, but it was 
done. It was done in a shorter time in the State of 
Washington. It can be done in a much shorter time 
in the United States if we will “face the facts” and 
build on the experience of the past. 

Federal Attorney Emory R. Buckner, of the city 
of New York, stated in his testimony, as reported 
in the Washington hearings, that the law could be 
enforced. 


“Won’t you tell us what the present condi- 
tion is, and give your recommendations?” was 
asked of him by Senator Reed. 

“Certainly,” replied Mr. Buckner, “and I 
have no doubt, personally speaking, that the 
law could be enforced in my district if we had 
the right kind of machinery.” 


He also stated: 


“T think it would be easily enforced if people 
begin to go to jail in substantial numbers.” 


In many places Prohibition was at first better 


PROHIBITION CAN BE ENFORCED 229 


enforced than it is now. This fact is apparently 
reflected in the death rates from the various diseases 
most closely associated with alcohol. For instance, 
the death rate per 100,000 in all registration cities 
from alcoholism averaged 5.0 for the four years 
preceding Prohibition, and then fell to an average 
of 2.9 for the first four years of Prohibition. During 
those four years, however, it rose from 1.4 the first 
year, to 4.5 for 1923, thus apparently registering a 
silent tribute to the laxities of law enforcement. 

In Connecticut, one of the States that did not 
ratify, we find, as Professor Farnam testified, two 
cities, side by side, Bridgeport and New Haven, of 
about the same size and location, in one of which 
the law had been well enforced, and the other the 
contrary, simply because in one there had been the 
requisite machinery, and in the other, not. In 
Bridgeport the number of cases on court records of 
violations of the liquor law decreased until in 1924 
they were only 162, while in New Haven the number 
increased and in 1924 was 328, double Bridgeport’s. 
Moreover, of the New Haven cases, over 25 per cent 
were acquitted, against only 11 per cent in Bridge- 
port. 


What Needs to Be Done 


As to the various means necessary for bringing 
about the effective enforcement, we have ample 
opportunity for expert advice. Mr. Buckner has 
made his suggestions for increasing the legal 


230 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


machinery. We certainly need an enforcement act 
in New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts, Civil 
Service requirements for Prohibition officials, and 
more and better judges. 

As to our Judges, it 1s reported that one particular 
judge fined a bootlegger five cents and then gave 
the convicted man the money with which to pay the 
fine. Of course this is not representative. Fines 
have become severer and jail sentences have come 
oftener and have been longer; but there is still a 
great deal that can be improved in our judiciary. 

To the criminal small fines mean less than an 
excise tax. To many foreigners who come in touch 
with our courts and learn through these courts of 
American ideals and institutions, the luke-warm 
attitude of certain judges does not foster respect for 
our government and they probably expect the same 
lack of severity if they should choose to violate other 
laws. 

General Andrews should be granted by Congress 
the powers for which he asks essential to effect en- 
forcement, also the wherewithal to exercise such 
powers. 

There are several bills pending in Congress 
which he deems essential. Some are necessary to 
effect a complete reorganization of the Prohibition 
Unit; others are necessary to cut red tape. If he is 
to be held responsible, he must be given every oppor- 
tunity to accomplish his task. 

General Andrews began his work by effecting an 


PROHIBITION CAN BE ENFORCED — 231 


understanding with the Mexican government, on 
the problem of smuggling arising along the border. 
His effort to meet the same problem on the Cana- 
dian border, also his recent endeavors with the gov- 
ernments of Great Britain and other countries, 
should bring about better enforcement of the law 
against foreign smugglers. 

Many, if not most, bootleggers are alien. It is 
they who do the most to cause disrespect for 
American law, having no respect for it themselves. 
I believe that alen bootleggers who are caught 
should be deported. 

It appears that—with the advent of Prohibition 
—many schools have relinquished instruction on the 
physiological effects of alcohol. But if ever our 
youth needed scientific instruction it is now. Such 
education should be resumed and improved. 

If the temperance organizations have relin- 
quished, or curtailed, their popular educational 
work, it is because many friends of Prohibition— 
mistakenly assuming that the fight was over—have 
curtailed their subscriptions. 

In connection with this question of educating 
public sentiment, should be mentioned the need of 
combating the fashion, among the wealthy in many 
places, of serving bootleg liquor in their homes. 
This custom apparently originated in the resent- 
ment of certain people against a law reflecting on 
their personal habits. It represents a spirit of 
defiance. Subconsciously these people were saying: 


“Well show you Prohibitionists! We are your 
superiors and propose to be superior to the law 
you put over on us.’ But, as the novelty and deyvil- 
try of it have worn off, the custom has become a 
burden which many would gladly be rid of if they © 
had the moral courage. In my own acquaintance 
I know of several who would heartily like to see 
the custom dropped, but do not dare break it yet. 
Ultimately the custom will doubtless crumble as 
the conscience of the “scofHlaws”’ asserts itself, over 
their sneaking patronage of the law-breaking boot- 
legger. Conscience will prick still more the instant 
the hostess begins to sense the fact that she is losing 
the respect of those whose respect she most values, 
even though they try to conceal that fact from her. 
Such is the lesson of Western experience and the 
Same causes will produce the same effects in the 
Kast. The very moral cowardice which now keeps 
this silly custom alive will kill it as soon as a certain 
dead center of public sentiment is passed. Then 
a few courageous social leaders will be surprised to 
find how rapidly a good example once set will be 
followed. 

This is primarily a woman’s job; but the rich 
husband can help not only from moral motives, but 
from economic. He can be made to realize that 
Prohibition enhances his own income too much to 
justify imperiling its success and bringing back the 
saloon to diminish the profits in his own business. He 
can also be made to realize that his own disrespect 





PROHIBITION CAN BE ENFORCED 233 


for law not only creates resentment among those 
too poor to do as he does, but sets a lawless example 
of which bolshevists, the enemies of private prop- 
erty, will not fail to take advantage. 

This custom is perhaps the most important obsta- 
cle to the success of Prohibition. Although the 
class which practices the custom probably consti- 
tutes much less than one per cent of the population, 
to them it seems that “everybody is doing it” and 
the influence of their example is powerful. 


“Obey the Law, Even If Bad” 

Success is purely a question of public sentiment. 
I entirely agree with those who say that we cannot 
enforce a law of this kind without a strong public 
sentiment behind it. 

I also agree to a large extent with those who be- 
lieve that, as a practical proposition, we shall get 
very little codperation out of the legalistic precept 
that laws should be obeyed, right or wrong. Theo- 
retically this is true, and the more it is recognized 
in practice, the better. But practically, among inde- 
pendent Americans, we do not get far merely by 
shouting, “Obey the law because it is the law, even if 
it is a bad law.’ The voters resent any idea of 
“theirs not to reason why!” 

It is my firm conviction that a great tactical blun- 
der has been made by those responsible for drop- 
ping the educational program, and turning to a 
mere law observance program. Prohibition made 


234 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


its great strides when the evils of alcohol were 
stressed. It lost ground as soon as that emphasis 
was lost. | 

The public who had not already been converted 
to Prohibition, and who never understood the basic 
reasons for it have acquired the impression, from 
being preached to by judges and clergymen and 
exhorted to obey the law merely because it is law, 
that no other good reason for obeying this law 
exists. They have acquired the idea that this Pro- 
hibition law is a bad law, resting only on the whim- 
sical ideas of fanatics. No one can be really enthu- 
silastic over obeying a bad law believed to have been 
“put over’ on an unsuspecting people. 

What is needed now is to go back to first prin- 
ciples, to educate the public to understand that there 
is a reason and a good one. Here is a parable: 


Once upon a time there was a town on the 
outskirts of which a large field was enclosed 
by a high fence with signs to “keep out!” 

As a consequence of putting up the fence, 
many people wanted to get in. They hated the 
Sonia “keep out!”, and saw no reason 
Orit: 

The fence was nearly battered down, where- 
upon the sign was changed to “Danger, Keep 
Out!” Even then some people resented the 
sign because they did not understand what the 
danger was. Finally over the sign was placed: 
“Dynamite stored here!” Then all but a very 
few foohardy people were content to “keep 
out.” 


PROHIBITION CAN BE ENFORCED ~— 235 


Those few who still insisted on their “per- 
sonal liberty” to enter were restrained by the 
majority who said, ““We would not prevent your 
entering if the result would be to blow up only 
yourselves. The reason we insist on compelling 
you to obey the law is that your disobedience 
would endanger the lives of others. Call it a 
restriction of your “personal liberty” if you 
will, but it is no real deprivation to you and it 
is a very real safeguard to us. 

This parable, I believe, applies in every detail. 
We cannot make the people “keep out” until they 
know that they are playing with dynamite. For 
the rank and file, education is needed more than 
force. Reasonable people will obey the law when 
its reasonableness is demonstrated. 


The trouble is that. very few people really know 
how dangerous this alcoholic dynamite is. There 


are few popular books on the subject. Some time 
after Prohibition was adopted, I called on the tele- 
phone the publisher of Dr. Eugene L. Fisk’s book, 
“Alcohol” (the best popular book in America on 
this subject), and was surprised and disappointed to 
find that Prohibition had not created much, if any, 
new demand for the book. The average man does 
not even know how little he knows on the subject. 
He is generally sure (1) that alcohol is a stimulant 
(2) that beer and even light wines are healthful 
rather than otherwise, (3) that his “thirst” for these 
is a natural one, and (4) that most people can use 
them in moderation without danger of using them 


236 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


“in excess”—every one of which four notions is 
false and has been proved false. Nor does he realize 
that the interrelations of modern life inevitably in- 
volve us in the derelictions of a few. He needs 
to study the social cost of alcohol in poverty, ineffi- 
ciency, crime, and vice. 


Full Success Well Worth Waiting For 

When, ultimately, the majority in the East under- 
stands these things, even as well as do those in the 
West and South, Prohibition will become as popular 
here as there, and enforcement as easy. As in Kan- 
sas, the slogan will not be the elusive and hollow 
ery of “Personal Liberty,’ but “Better Boys and 
Better Business!” 

It is idle to say that the law cannot change habits. 
By itself, of course, it can do little. But combined 
with education it can do much. Experience in the 
West proves this. We must remember: this is a 
scientific age. If the laboratory says “vitamines,” 
the demand for tomatoes and cabbages increases 
forthwith. Who can doubt that Science will review 
every habit and custom? It is manifest destiny that 
alcohol will not survive this scrutiny. 

Just how many good people are losing faith in 
Prohibition? There is the inevitable reaction that 
follows every reform. The Prohibition movement 
has always been something of a see-saw. First, the 
people see clearly the evils of the saloon and put it 


out of business. Ihen we iorget those evils, and | 
see the evils of the illicit traffic, thereupon we aban- 
don or modify Prohibition. Then the inevitable 
happens. The saloon comes back, and we begin all 
over again. Yet the general forward movement 
never seems to stop. With all its ups and downs, 
generation by generation, it goes on and upward 
substantially. 

The best observer I know in Kansas said to me 
that National Prohibition may take a quarter of a 
century to blossom out fully, as did State Prohibi- 
tion in Kansas, but that, even so, “it is well worth 
waiting for.” A former health officer of Chicago 
told me that if we are now foolish enough to try 
light wines and beer, it will merely supply the object 
lesson needed to reconvert to Prohibition those who 
are now being influenced by the wet propaganda 
against it. Henry Ford tells us that the Wets help 
the Drys by drawing attention to the need of 
tightening up on Prohibition. General Andrews 
said in the hearings at Washington that a knowl- 
edge of the abuses of Prohibition would help en- 
forcement. 

Not only should education, both formal and 
popular, be pressed, but research. Every result con- 
tested should be retested until there can be no 
room for doubt left. 

In short, we need more research and education, 
resulting in improved public understanding and 


238 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


sentiment; constructive legislation, including Civil 
Service provisions, permitting better admuinistra- 
tion; and severer judgments in our courts. 


Summary 

What, then, is the situation? We may end as we 
began: 

(1) Present conditions are intolerable and must 
be corrected. 

(2) Even so, they are not as dark as they have 
been painted. Moreover, if we do ultimately cor- 
rect them, they are now in the nature of temporary 
evils, destined to fade away in a few years, while 
the good from Prohibition will go on indefinitely. 

(3) A great net good is already being realized, 
including over six billion dollars a year in cold cash 
values. 

(4) Real personal liberty, the liberty to live and 
enjoy the full use of our faculties, is increased by 
Prohibition. 

(5) Light wines and beer cannot be legalized 
without another Constitutional Amendment. 

(6) No such Amendment can be passed. 

(7) All that the Wets can possibly accomplish 
is laxity of enforcement or nullification; in other 
words, enormously to increase the very disrespect 
for law which they profess to deplore. 

(8) Therefore, the only satisfactory solution lies 
in fuller enforcement. 


PROHIBITION CAN BE ENFORCED ~— 239 


(9) This can be accomplished, especially, with 
the aid of education—when we “face the facts.” 

Prohibition is here to stay. If not enforced, its 
blessings will speedily turn into a curse. There is 
no time to lose. Although things are much better 
than before Prohibition, with the possible excep- 
tion of disrespect for law, they may not stay so. 
Enforcement will cure disrespect for law and other 
evils complained of, as well as greatly augment the 
good. American Prohibition will then go down in 
history as ushering in a new era in the world, in 
which accomplishment this nation will take pride 
forever. 





LIST OF AUTHORS, TITLES, AND PUBLISHERS 


No. 
F 


Hearings: Before the Sub-committee of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, 69th Congress, 2 Volumes, 1660 pages, April 
5-24, 1926. 

The Prohibition Situation, Research Bulletin 5, Federal 
ean of Churches of Christ in America, N. Y., September, 
1925. 

Tuomas Nrxon Carver: The Present Economic Revolution 
in the United States. Little, Brown & Co., 1925. 

Hearings: Brewing and Liquor Interests and German Propa- 
ganda. U.S. Senate, 1919. 

Annual Report Bureau Internal Revenue. U.S. Treasury, 
1923. 

Ernest H. Straryina: The Action of Alcohol on Man, chapter 
by Raymond Pearl on “Alcohol and Mortality.” Longmans, 
Green & Co., N. Y., 1923. 

Irving FisHer and Evcene Lyman Fisx, M.D.: How to 
Live. Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 18th Edition, 1926. 

North American Review. Sept., Oct., Nov., 1926. 

Methodist Board of Temperance. Clip Sheet. Washington, 
Dac: 

Evcensp Lyman Fisx: Alcohol. Funk & Wagnalls, New 
Work, N. Y., 1917: 


. Ben H. Spence: The Case for Prohibition, Toronto, Ontario, 


1925. 


. Water A. Bastepo: Materia Medica, Pharmacology, and 


Therapeutics. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia and Lon- 
don, 1918, 2nd Edition. 

P. Larmmnes: Norman Kerr Lecture on the Influence of Alco- 
hol on Immunity. Medical Record, Ixxvi, 1909. 


. Georce Rusrin: Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1904, 1. 
. F. V. Fruuincer: Med. Wochenschrift. 1912, xxxviii, p. 999. 


W. W. Wernsura: New York Medical Journal. Russky & 
Vratch, 1912, ii, p. 1824. N. Y. M. J. 1912, xvi, p. 1040. 


. Georce W. Crite: Blood Pressure in Surgery. J. B. Lippin- 


cott.Co., Philadelphia, 1903. 
241 


242 


17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 


21. 


22. 
23. 
24. 
25. 
26. 
27. 
28. 
29. 


30. 


31. 


32. 


PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


Ricuarp C. Casor: Studies of the Action of Alcohol in Dis- 
ease, Especially upon the Circulation. Med. News, xxii, 
1903, pp. 145-153. 

Dennic, HinpELAND, and GruensAuM: Deutsch. Arch. f. Klin. 
Med. 1909, xcvi, pp. 153-162. 

Emitie ALEXANDROSS: Cor. Bl. f. Schweiz, Aerzte. 1910, xl, 
pp. 465-475. 

Action of Alcohol During Febrile and Other Pathologic Con- 
ditions. Journal A.M.A., 1910, lv, p. 174. 

J. Hérrcourr: The Social Diseases. Routledge, London, 1920. 

Journal American Medical Association. 

Cesare Lomproso: Crime: Its Causes and Remedies. Wal- 
ter Scott, London, 1891. 

Exrz Mercunikorr: The New Hygiene. Keener, Chicago. 
1906. 

Raymonp Dopce and Francis Benepicr: Psychological 
Effects of Alcohol. The Carnegie Inst. of Washington, Pub. 
No. 232, 1915. 

Henry SmirH Wiiuiams: Alcohol. The Century Co., New 
York, 1909. 

E. L. Transeau, C. T. Stopparp: Alcohol in Every Day Life. 
Amer. Issue Pub. Co., Westerville, Ohio. 

Cora Frances Sropparp: Shall We Save Beer and Wine? 
International Reform Bureau, Washington, D. C., 1919. 
Proressor C. T. W. Patrick: In Quest of the Alcohol Motive. 

Popular Science Monthly. 

Water R. Mites: Alcohol and Human Efficiency. Carnegie 
Inst. Washington, Pub. No. 333, March, 1924. 

FRANKFURTHER: Psychologische Arbeiten. 1896 and 1904. 

W. H.R. Rivers: The Influence of Alcohol and Other Drugs 
on Fatigue. Edward Arnold, London Interstate Med. Jour., 
XXill. 

Ernest Gorpon: Russian Prohibition. Am. Issue Publishing 
Co. 

Wurm E. Borau: Address before Presbyterian General 
Assembly, Baltimore, Md., May 30, 1926. Quoted in New 
York Herald Tribune. 

State v. Powell: 50 N.E. 900, 902, 58 Ohio St., 324, 41 L.R.A. 
854. 

Kentucky Board of Pharmacy v. Cassidy, Crowley v. Chris- 
tensen. 74 S.W. 730, 732, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 102 citing C. v. 
C., 137 U. S. 86, 11 Sup. Ct. 13, 34 L. Ed. 620. 


33. 


34. 
30. 


36. 
37. 
38. 
39. 


40. 


41. 
42. 
43. 
44, 


45, 
46. 


47. 
48. 


49. 


50. 


LIST OF AUTHORS, ETC. 243 


In the case of State vs. Doe. 139, Pac., on p. 1170 the 
Supreme Court of Kansas. 

Crowley vs. Christensen. 1387, U. 3S. 

Ernest Gorpon: Studies and Documents of the Anti-Alcohol 
Movement. Boston, 1916. 

J. A. Danrtevson: Prohibition As It Is. 1926. 

National Daily. 

Ernest H. Cuerrincton: The Evolution of Prohibition in 
The United States of America. The American Issue Pub- 
lishing Co., Westerville, Ohio, 1920. 

Ernest H. Cuerrineton: The Anti-Saloon Year Book. The 
American Issue Publishing Co., Westerville, Ohio. 

Francis G. Benepicr: Alcohol and Human Physiology, Car- 
negie Inst. Washington, reprinted Industrial and Eng. 
Chemists., xvii, 4, 428, April, 1925. 

H. L. HottincswortH: A Comparison of Alcohol and Caffe- 
ine. Therapeutic Gazette, Feb. 15, 1921. 

The Pioneer: Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 

U.S. Daily: Washington, D. C. 

Rosert E. Corrapint: Broadway Under Prohibition. World 
League Against Alcoholism, 1924. 

Henry W. Farnam in Yale Review. April, 1920. 

American Issue. American Issue Publishing Co., Westerville, 
Ohio. 

Bulletin, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., New York, N. Y. 

Washington Convention at the Woman’s National Commit- 
tee for Law Enforcement. April 10-11, 1924. 

Henry Hersert Gopparp: Feeble-Mindedness—Its Causes and 
Consequences. Macmillan, New York, 1920. 

international Monats. f. Erforschung des Alkoholismus. July, 
1904. 


. Citizen’s Committee of One Thousand. New York, N. Y. 
. Percy H. Evans: The Record. American Institute of 


Actuaries, vol. xiv. pt. 1, No. 29. June, 1925. 


. Literary Digest. New York. 
. Lapy Astor in: Annals of the American Academy of Politica] 


and Social Science. Sept., 1923. 


. Exurzaspruo Tiuton: Save America. Woman’s National Com. 


mittee for Law Enforcement, Boston, Mass. 


. J. Srumre: Compilation of Tables. 
. Proressor Von StruMPELL: Journal Amer. Med. Assoc. 
. Dr. Jonannes LEoNHART: Journal Amer. Med. Assoc. 


72. 


PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 


Bayer: Influence of Use of Alcohol on School Children, 
Vienna, 1899. 
Scuiavi: L’Abstinence, Nov. 13, 1909, Brescia, Italy. 


. Roserr E. Corrapini: The Bowery. World League Against 


Alcoholism, New York, 1923. 


. Rosert E. Corrapinr: Saloon Survey, World League Against 


Alcoholism, New York, 1925. 

Rosert E. Corrapinit: The Passing of Saloons in N. Y. C. 
World League Against Alcoholism, New York, 1925. 

Henry W. Farnam: The Liquor Problem. Houghton, 
Mifflin Co., Boston, 1905. 

Wayne B. Wueswer: Abstract of Investigation of Brewery 
and Liquor Interest and German Propaganda. Senate 
Resolution, 307. 

Spnator ArTHUR Capper: Annals, American Academy, Sept., 
1923. 

JoHN Koren: The Economic Aspect of the Liquor Problem, 
Annals, Amer. Acad. of Political Social Science, Sept., 1923. 


. Rosert A. Woops: Notes About Prohibition from the Back- 


ground. Annals, Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Sci- 
ence, Sept., 1923. 


. Rosert E. Corrapinr: The Production and Consumption of 


Alcohol in the United States. Research Dept. W. L. A. A, 
1926. (Not as yet published.) 


. Reports of the Prohibition Unit. Annual Reports of the 


Bureau of Internal Revenue. U.S. Treasury Dept. 


. Medico-Actuarial Mortality Investigation. Vol. 4, Part I, 


pp. 11-13. The Association of Life Insurance Medical 
Directors and the Actuarial Society of America. New York, 
1914. 

Percy H. Evans: Note on Mortality by Habits Representa- 
tion. Transactions, Actuarial Society of America. October 
10-11, 1918. Vol. 19, Part 2, No. 60; p. 235. 


INDEX 


Abel, Professor, cited, 212 

Abstainers, statistics concern- 
ing, 103, 104, 105, 106, 111, 
112-113 

Accidents, increased probabil- 
ity of, 68-69; increased rate 
of, among drinkers, 108-109 

Agar, John C., 16 

Alcohol, poisonous qualities of, 
Pee os a hla, 14118 Fo 
212-215; economically costly, 
2; war conference on, 5-6; 
illegal diversion of industrial, 
43; total consumption fig- 
ures, 44; change in formule 
for denatured, 93; therapeu- 
tic value of, denied, 114-116; 
effect of, on disease germs, 
118-121; a depressant, not a 
stimulant, 121-123; habit- 
forming action of, 133-136; 
craving for, acquired, 135 

Alcoholic standards, diversity 
in, 218-220 

Alcoholism, environmental con- 
trol of, 138ff.; death rate 
from, 141; dangers of, among 
the rich, 184-186, 231-233 

Alexandross, cited, 119 

Allegheny County Liquor Deal- 
ers’ Association, activity of 
the, 206 

American Federation of Labor, 
187 

American Institute of Actu- 

aries, Record of, cited, 110 


245 


American Issue, The, articles 
in, cited, 202 

American Medical Association, 
resolution passed by, on me- 
dicinal use of alcohol, 115 

American Mercury, article in, 
cited, 110 

Andreae, Percy, organizer for 
Brewers’ Association, quoted 
and cited, 101, 195, 198, 203 

Andrews, Lincoln C., 28, 91, 
92, 93, 230-231 

Angell, James R., quoted on 
conditions at Yale, 76 

Angier, Roswell P., quoted on 
conditions at Yale, 75 

Anglin, Mrs. Viola M., cited 
and quoted, 95-96 

Anstie, Dr., cited, 212 

Anti-Saloon League, 8, 10, 12, 
85 

Arrests for drunkenness, statis- 
tics of, 28, 30-32, 34; reduced 
by State Prohibition, 47, 49- 
51; decrease in, 94, 182, 183 

Aschafienburg, Professor, effi- 
ciency experiments of, 124 

Association Against the Prohi- 
bition Amendment, 18, 187, 
205 

Association of Commerce and 
Labor, 195 

Automobiles, drunken drivers 
of, 62, 64-65; increase in non- 
professional drivers of, 65-66, 
68 


246 


Barker, Dr. Lewellys F., cited, 
16, 138 

Bastedo, cited, 118 

Bayer, E., school children in- 
vestigation conducted by, 
132 

Beatty, Lee W., improved con- 
diticns reported by, 177-178 

Beer, control of, 93; deleterious 
effects of, 123-136. See Near 
beer. 

Bellevue and Allied Hospitals, 
decrease in deaths from alco- 
holism. in, 142-143 

Benedict, Dr. Francis G., cited 
and quoted on alcohol as a 
depressant, 121-123; psycho- 
logical experiments of, 129- 
131; quoted on physical ef- 
fects of alcohol, 211-212 

Bevan, Dr. Arthur Dean, quoted 
on 2.75 beer, 215-216 

Blood poisoning, effect of alco- 
hol on, 118-119 

Bootlegger, the, 101, 102, 231 

Borah, William E., quoted, 
170-171, 218-220 

Boston, improved conditions in, 
183 

Boy, Lieutenant, cited, 126 

Brain, effect of alcohol on the, 
120-121 

Brewer, H. O., testimony of, for 
Prohibition, 184 

Brewers, war-time Prohibition 
blocked by, 6 ff.; Lever Ford 
Bill blocked by, 8-9; meth- 
ods of propaganda employed 
by, 189-190, 191-196; exploi- 
tation of honest “Wets” by, 
191-196; appeals of, to pop- 
ular sentiment, 197 ff.; use of 
newspaners by, 197-200; use 


INDEX 


of Chautauquas by, 199-200; — 
acquisition of writers by, 198- 
202; German propaganda 
used by, 200-201; plan of, for 
exploiting women, 202-205 

Brewers’ Association of Massa- 
chusetts, activity of, 206-207 

Brewing interests. See Liquor 
interests. 

British Central Board of Con- 
trol of the Liquor Traffic, 
data of, 138-139 

British Medical Journal, arti- 
cle by Dr. Pearl cited in, 107 

Brooks, cited, 119 

Brown, E. N., 15 

Broyles, Judge, quoted on near- 
beer law, 209 

Bruce, Mrs. Helen, testimony 
of, on conditions in Ken- 
tucky, 182-183 

Bruce, William C., 19, 100, 134- 
135, 187 

Buckner, Emory R., 19, 43, 94, 
228 


Cabot, Dr. Richard C., quoted 
on medicinal use of alcohol, 
114, 119 

Callahan, Patrick H., testimony 
of, on conditions in Kentucky, 
182-183 

Campbell, E. Fay, quoted on 
conditions at Yale, 74 

Canada, effect of Government 
distribution in, 209-210 

Capper, Arthur, 169, 192, 205- 
206 

Carver, Thomas Nixon, 66, 163 

Central Pennsylvania Brewing 
Company, activity of, 206 

Cherry Street Settlement, im- 
proved conditions in, 177 


INDEX 


Chicago, Shirk’s statistics on, 
37, 40 

Children, investigation among, 
132-133; improved conditions 
among, 176-178 

Cholera germs, effect of alco- 
hol on, 120 

Clarke, Charles C., quoted on 
conditions at Yale, 75 

Cleveland, effect of Prohibi- 
tion in, 182 

Codman, Julien, 187, 188 

Colleges, Prohibition in, 172 ff.; 
improved conditions in, 178 

Committee of Fifty, investiga- 
tion by, 165 

Congress, War-time Prohibition 
blocked in, 8-10 

Connecticut, crucial test in, 51, 
59-61; lower death rates in, 
140; enforcement in, 229 

Connecticut Brewers’ Associa- 
tion, activity of, 206 

Conradi, cited, 120 

Constitutional Liberty League 
of Massachusetts, 187, 192 

Constitutional Prohibivion. See 
National Prohibition. 

Coolidge, Calvin, quoted, 17; 
Massachusetts beer bill ve- 
toed by, 207 

Corradini, Robert E., statistics 
of, on arrests for drunkenness, 
32 n.,41; statistics of, on con- 
sumption of alcohol, 44; 
“Dry” State statistics of, 47; 
cited on survey of former sa- 
loon sites, 164 

Crile, Dr. George W., cited, 119 

Crime, misleading _ statistics 
concerning, 20 

“Crime Wave,” exaggeration of, 
94, 95 


247 


D’Abernon, Lord, cited on en-~ 
vironmental control, 139 

Dana, Dr. Charles L., 16, 138 

Danielson, J. A., quoted on 
“good liquor’ elimination, 
195-196 

Darlington, Bishop James H., 
quoted on conditions in 
Pennsylvania, 181 

Death rate, decrease in, from 
alcoholism, 138-1438, 152-153. 
See Mortality. 

Delinquency, decrease in juven- 
ile, 78, 94, 182 

Denatured alcohol. See Alcohol. 

Denaturing plants, curb on, 93 

Dennig, cited, 119 

Dever, Mayor, quoted on 
Shirk’s statistics, 37 

Disease, data of, reduced, 138 
Heyl bs 

Disease germs, effect of alcohol 
on, 118-121 

Dispensary system, discussion 
of, 209-210 

Distillers, effort of, to beat na- 
tional prohibition law, 206 

Dodge, cited and quoted on 
alcohol as a depressant, 121- 
123; psychological experi- 
ments of, 129-131 

Doran, Dr. J. M., 43 

Drink, aristocratic tradition of, 
184-186 

Drink habit, diminution of the, 
44, 47, 51, 59-64, 73 ff. 

Drivers, drunken, 62, 64-65; in- 
crease in non-professional, 
65, 66, 68 

Drugs, craving for, acquired, 
135 

Drunkenness, increase in, exag- 
gerated, 20-21; decrease in, 


248 
21-25; Shirk’s statistics on, 
26-41 ; statistics of arrests for, 
28, 30-32, 34; Corradini’s 
statistics on, 41; comparative, 
47, 49-51; reduction of, in 
Connecticut, 59-61; decrease 
in arrests for, 94 

Dunn, Gano, 16 

Durig, cited, 126 

Dwyer, William V., Federal 
conviction of, 91 

Dykman, William N., 16 


Edge, Walter E., 19, 187 

Editors, replies of, to question- 
naire, 179 

Education, necessity for public, 
2-4, 231-239 

Efficiency, effects of alcohol on, 
123-136; increase in, under 
Prohibition, 156 ff. 

Kighteenth Amendment, 12, 13; 
ratification of, 84; Senate 
Sub-committee report on, 
224-225; repeal of, impossible, 
227 

Eleetion issues (1926), 210-211 

Emerson, Dr. Haven, 8; quoted 
on alcohol as a poison, 119, 
120; quoted on alcohol as a 
habit former, 134; charts of, 
cited, 142, 143; quoted on the 
relation between alcohol and 
mortality, 151-152 

Enforcement, effect of laxity 
in, 61-62; degree of Federal, 
90 ff.; effect of local codpera- 
tion on, 92; effect of im- 
proved, 141; report of Senate 
Sub-committee on, 224-225; 
can be effected, 227 ff. 

England, decrease in female 
drunkenness in, 139-140 


INDEX 


Eugenics, alcohol and, 138n. 

Evans, Percy H., cited and 
quoted, 110, 111 

Evans, Dr. William A., quoted 
on 2.75 beer, 216 


Farmer, the problem of the, 
168-169 

Farnam, Henry W., 59, 60, 87, 
165, 229 

Federal Council of Churches of 
Christ in America, 17, 18, 179 

Feigenspan, C. W., President of 
the United States Brewers’ 
Association, 9; quoted on 
brewers’ writers, 202 

Females, decrease in deaths 
from alcoholism among, 140- 
141 

Filibuster, War-time Prohibi~ 
tion blocked by, 8-10 

Fillinger, cited, 119 

Fines, 230 

Finland, increased productivity 
in, 158 

First offenders, 20-24 

Fisk, Dr. Eugene L., 8; quoted 
on medicinal use of alcohol, 
114-115; quoted on alcohol as 
a habit former, 134; quoted 
on mortality, 152-153 

Fiske, Haley, 16 

Fiske, Right Reverend Charles, 
16 

Fordney-MacCumber tariff, ef- 
fect of, on the farmer, 168 

Foster, Mrs. Katherine Condon, 
report of, on improved condi- 
tions in colleges and universi- 
ties, 178 

Fox, Austen G., 15 

Fox, Hugh F., secretary of the 
United Brewers’ Association, 


INDEX 


100-101, 191-192, 202; scheme 
of, for exploiting women, 203- 
204 
Frankfurther, efficiency experi- 
ments of, 131 


Gary, Indiana, federal convic- 
tions in, 91 

Gary, cited, 162 

Geagley, William, quoted on 
2.75 beer, 216 

Georgia, experience of, with 
near beer, 209 

German-American Alliance, 
brewers’ donations to, 200-201 

German propaganda, brewers’ 
interest in, 200-201 

Germs, effect of alcohol on, 
118-121 

Gettler, A. O., 28 

Gompers, Samuel, 7 

Gordon, Ernest, cited on in- 
creased productivity in Rus- 
sia, 158; quoted on methods 
employed by liquor interests, 
191; cited on Mr. Koren and 
Mr. Fox, 202 

Government distribution, dis- 
cussion of, 209-210 

Green, Mrs. Helen H., testi- 
mony of, on conditions in 
Cleveland, 182 

Gruenbaum, cited, 119 


Habit former, alcohol as a, 133- 
136 

Hadley, Arthur Twining, quoted, 
17 

Hamon, Lieutenant - Colonel, 
quoted on improved condi- 
tions among the poor, 177 

Harwood, Frank J., testimony 
of, for Prohibition, 181-182 


249 


Health, increase in, due to Pro- 
hibition, 153 

Heart, effect of alcohol on the, 
121-123 

Heffenreffer brewing interests, 
188 

Hemoglobin, effect of alcohol 
on, 120 

Héricourt, Dr., quoted on alco- 
hol as a habit former, 133 

Hesse, Major Edwin B., cited, 
71 n. 

Hewes, James A., testimony of, 
for Prohibition, 183 

Higley, George O., quoted on 
2.75 beer, 217 

Hindelang, cited, 119 

Hollingworth, H. L., beer tests 
made by, 215 

Hoover, Herbert, quoted on in- 
crease in productivity, 162- 

_ 163 

How to Live, article in, cited, 
110 

Humes, Major, interrogations 
of, before Senate Committee, 
193-195 

Hunt, Dr. Reid, quoted on 
medicinal use of alcohol, 115; 
quoted on 2.75 beer, 216-217 


Indiana, Shirk’s statistics on, 
34, 37, 47 

Industry, effect of Prohibition 
on, 157 ff. 

Infant suffocation, 140 

Infection, effect of alcohol on, 
120 

Insanity, decrease in alcoholic, 
153 

Installment buying, 167-168 

Intoxicants, therapeutic value 
of, denied, 114-116 


250 


Jones, Frederick S., quoted on 
conditions at Yale, 73-74 

Judges, need for better, 230 

Juvenile delinquency. See Del- 
inquency. 


Kansas, enforcement in, 228 

Karsten, Karl G., 21 

Keating, Edward, report of, 
cited, 179-180 

Kelly, Clyde, quoted on activi- 
ties of liquor interests, 205- 
206 

Kelly, Dr. Howard A., quoted 
on medicinal use of alcohol, 
114 

Kentucky, effect of Prohibition 
in, 182-183 

Koren, John, brewers’ writer, 
201-202 

Kraepelin, Emil, efficiency tests 
of, 124-126 


Labor, brewers’ appeal to or- 
ganized, 198-199 

Laitines, cited, 118 

Lambert, Dr. Alexander, quoted 
on alcohol as a habit former, 
133-134 

Lambert, Dr. Samuel W., 16 

Leland, cited, 152 

Leonhart, Dr. Johannes, quoted 
on beer, 127 

Lever Ford Bill, passing of, 
blocked by brewers, 8-9, 10 

Liberty, meaning of, 170-175 

“Liberty leagues,” 192 ff. 

Liberty League, Inc., Washing- 
ton, D. C., 195 

Liége, comparison of arrests for 
drunkenness in, 95 

Life insurance statistics, infer- 


INDEX 


ences drawn from, 109, 110, 
111, 112, 113 

“Liquid Bread,” brewers’ propa- 
ganda, 199 

Liquors, high price a deterrent 
in obtaining, 102 . 

Liquor dealers, death rate 
among, 152-153 

Liquor interests, activity of, 
205-207 

Lnterary Digest, replies to ques- 
tionnnaire sent out by, 77 

Local codperation, 92 ff. 

London, comparison of arrests 
for drunkenness in, 95 

Longevity, effect of alcohol on, 
103 ff. 

Lothrop, Theodore A., quoted 
on improved conditions 
among women and children, 
176-177 

Lowden, Governor, 169 


McClintock, Emory, 
111-112 

McCormack, Dr. J. U., quoted 
on medicinal use of alcohol, 
115 

McCullough, Lieutenant- 
Colonel, quoted on medicinal 
use of alcohol, 116 

McDermott, John A., testimony 
of, before Senate Committee, 
192-195 

Madison Square Church House, 
improved social conditions in 
neighborhood of, 177 

Maguire, Thomas F., 166-167, 
187 ff. 

Martin, Dr. Franklin, 7 

Massachusetts Constitutional 
Liberty League, 187, 192 


quoted, 


INDEX 


Medical Science, report in, 
cited, 115 

Medico-Actuarial Investigation, 
113 

Mellon, Secretary, quoted, 61- 
62 

Memory, effect of alcohol on, 
126, 130 

Mendell, C. W., quoted on con- 
ditions at Yale, 74 

Metchnikoff, quoted on alcohol, 
121 

Metropolitan Life Insurance 
Company, death rate figures 
of, 142 

Miles, Dr. Walter R., efficiency 
experiments of, 128; cited 
and quoted on physiological 
effects of alcohol, 212-214 

Mobins, Professor, quoted on 
deleterious effect of beer, 126- 
127 

“Moderate” drinkers, 103, 104, 
105, 106, 107, 111, 112, 135, 
137 

Moderation League of New 
York 15-18, 19, 20, 24, 30, 31, 
32, 34, 41, 46, 47, 62, 85, 86, 
106, 138, 156, 183, 187, 188, 
190, 192 

“Modification,” impracticability 
of, 208-209, 225-227 

Moral suasion, flaw in program 
of, 3 

Mortality, statistics on, 103 ff.; 
113, 141 

Motor functions, effect of alco- 
hol on, 123-136 

Motor Vehicle Law, violations 
of, 95 

Muller, cited, 118 

Mullen-Gage law, effect of re- 
peal of, 24, 143 


251 


Narcotics, decrease in sale of, 
in Pennsylvania, 181 

National Bureau of Child Wel- 
fare, cited on infant suffoca- 
tion, 140 n. 

National income, increase in, 
due to Prohibition, 159-160 
National Model License League, 

190 

National prohibition, 10, 13; 
premature adoption of, 11-12, 
83; effect of, on “Dry” states, 
47; effect of, on “Wet” States, 
51 

National Prohibition hearings. 
See Senate. 

Near beer, impracticability of, 
as non-intoxicating drink, 184, 
209, 211-217; brewers’ activity 
in regard to production of, 
206-207; physiological tests 
with, 212-215 

Neumann, quoted, 120-121 

New York City, drunkenness 
in, 62; juvenile delinquency 
in, 78; lower death rates in, 
140, 142 

New York Gazette, quoted, 86- 
87 

New York Legislature, 
bill repealed in, 207 

New York Referendum (1926), 
plan for, 220-223 

New York State, repeal of en- 
forcement act in, 92; efforts 
at enforcement in, 93; Prohi- 
bition sentiment in, 93-94; 
lower death rates in, 140 

New York State Hospital 
Commission, report of, cited, 
153 

Newspapers, use of, by brewers, 
197-200 


beer 


252 


North American Review, ar- 
ticle in, quoted, 61-62 


Ontario, sentiment in, against 
use of alcohol, 115-116 


Palmer, A. Mitchell, quoted, 
201 

Pampoukis, cited, 120 

Paris, comparison of arrests for 
drunkenness in, 95 

Parkinson, cited, 119 

Pearl, Raymond, quoted, 103, 
104, 105, 106; unreliability 
and inadequacy of data, 104- 
110; cited, 138 n. 

Pearson, Karl, cited, 188 n. 

Pennsylvania, benefits of Prohi- 
bition in, 180-181 


Penrose, Senator, War-time 
Prohibition measures delayed 
by, 9 


“Personal liberty,” limitations 
of, 170-175; fallacy of, 184, 
187 

Philadelphia, efforts at enforce- 
ment in, 92-93; brewers’ ac- 
tivity in, 206 

Pioneer, The, result of question- 
naire sent out by, 116 

Pneumonia germs, efiect of al- 
cohol on, 119 

Potter, Dr. Ellen C., quoted on 
need for enforcement, 180- 
181 

Poverty, decrease in, 165-166, 
182, 183 

Pritchett, Henry S., 16 

Productivity, increase in, 157 ff. 

Profits, increase in, due to Pro- 
hibition, 161 

Prohibition, example of prosper- 
ity following, 5; effect of, on 


INDEX 


food supply, 8; alleged fail- 
ure of, exaggerated, 20; ill 
effects of, exaggerated, 20-21; 
effectiveness of, 21-22, 24-25; 
relation of lawlessness to, 64- 
65; effect of, on youth, 72 ff.; 
public sentiment against, ex- 
aggerated, 83ff.; growth of 
state-wide, 84, 85; historical 
note concerning, 86-89; foun- 
dation of, 1385-136;  self- 
poisoning habit reduced by, 
137-138; falsity of eugenic 
argument against, 138n.; 
public health improved by, 
158; increase in economic 
good under, 157 ff.; increase 
in national income due to, 
159-160; rise of wages due 
to, 161; increase in profits 
due to, 161; increase in gen- 
eral prosperity due to, 162- 
164; economic value of, 163- 
164; poverty diminished by, 
165-166; improved _ social 
conditions due to, 176; bene- 
fits of, in Pennsylvania, 180- 
181; effect of, in Cleveland, 
182; effect of, m Kentucky, 
182-183; effect of, in Boston, 


183; brewers’ propaganda 
against, 187 ff.; enforcement 
possible, 227ff.; need for 


better qualified officials, 230. 
See State prohibition. See 
War-time prohibition. 

Prosperity, effect of recent, 66; 
increase in, 162-164 

Prostitution, relation of wom- 
en’s drinking places to, 204- 
205 

Public health, increase in, due 
to Prohibition, 153 


INDEX 


Public sentiment, need for ed- 
ucating, 231-233 


Quebec system of distribution, 
209-210 
Quensel, cited, 120 


Rabies, effect of alcohol on, 
120 

Rackemann, Charles S., 188 

Randall, Congressman, amend- 
ment of, to Lever Food Bill, 
8 

Raymond, Dr., testimony of, 
for Prohibition, 183 

Redfield, William C., 16 

Reed, Senator, 28, 187 

Reich, cited, 120 

Remington, Franklin, 16 

Repeaters, 20-21, 24-25 

Resistance, alcohol lowers vital, 
118-121 

Rivers, efficiency experiments 
of, 131 

Root, Elihu, 16 

Rubin, cited, 119 

Rum running, Federal convic- 
tion for, 91 

Russia, increased productivity 
in, 158 


Saloon, necessity to outlaw, 4; 
disappearance of the, 100, 
102; replacing of, by new 
businesses, 164 

Salvation Army, improved so- 
cial conditions reported by, 
177 

Schiavi, school children inves- 
tigation by, 132-133 

Schnyder, cited, 126 

Scottish Life Assurance Com- 


253 


pany, mortality statistics of 
the, 113 

Senate, United States, War- 
time prohibition blocked in, 
8-10; War-time Prohibition 
passed too late by, 11-12, 13; 
testimony presented at hear- 
ings of the Sub-committee of 
the Committee on the Judi- 
ciary, 28, 43, 90-93, 165, 166, 
177-184, 187 ff., 209, 215; re- 
port of Sub-committee in 
support of the Eighteenth 
Amendment, 224-225 

Sheppard, Senator, 9 

Shirk, Stanley, faulty statistics 
of, 20, 26 ff.; statistics of, on 
Indiana, 34, 37; statistics of, 
on Chicago, 37, 40; inaccu- 
racy of statistics of “Dry” 
States, 46-47; quoted on 
“Dry” state conditions, 47; 
tale of drunken drivers, 62, 
64-65; quoted on drinking 
among the youth, 70 

Shooting, effect of alcohol on 
accuracy in, 126 

Sickness, decrease in, 153 

Smith, Dr. A., experiments of, 
cited, 126 

Social conditions, improvement 
in, 176, 180-184 

Social responsibility, new ideal 
of, 186 

Spence, Benjamin, cited, 210 

Speyer, James, 16 

Starling, Dr., 109 

State Prohibition, effect of, in 
Washington, 5; arrests re- 
duced by, 47, 49-51 

Stelzle, Charles, 8 

Stewart, Dr. George David, 16 

Stiles, Charles W., quoted 


254 


on women ana drink, 204- 
205 

Stockard, Dr., cited, 138 n. 

Stoddard, Cora Frances, 215 

Stone, Warren S., quoted on 
_ Prohibition, 165-166 

Szeckley, cited, 120 

Talley, Alfred J., cited on 
“crime wave,” 95 

Taylor, Alonzo, 8 

Taylor, Frederick W., Prohi- 
bition favored by, 158 

Temperance, ideal of, shattered, 
135 

“The Need of a Personal Lib- 
erty Day,” address by brew- 
ers’ representative, 198-199 

“The Passing of Hans Dippel,” 
brewers’ propaganda play, 
199 

Tilton, Mrs. Elizabeth, quoted 
on Government distribution 
in Canada, 209-210 

Toxicity, no allowance for in- 
creased, 28 

‘Typesetting, effect of alcohol 
on efficiency in, 124 

Typewriting, effect of alcohol 
on efficiency in, 128-129, 
131 

Typhoid germs, effect of alco- 
hol on, 118, 120 


United Kingdom Temperance 
and General Provident In- 
stitution of London, mortal- 
ity statistics of the, 113 

United States, lower death rates 
in, 140-142 

United States Brewers’ Asso- 
ciation, propaganda of the, 
189-190 


INDEX 


Venereal diseases, effect of al- 
cohol on, 120: 
Vogt, Professor, 
of, cited, 126 
Volstead Act, 15, 19, 26, 41, 
47, 59, 64, 84, 90, 173, 179, 

208 

Von Bunge, Gustav, quoted on 
beer, 127 

Von Strumpell, quoted on beer, 
127-128 


experiments 


Wages, rise of, due to Prohi- 
bition, 161 

Walden, Percy T., quoted on 
conditions at Yale, 76 

Wallace’s Farmer, cited, 169 

Walsh, Senator, 188 

War conference on alcohol, 5-6 

Warren, Charles H., quoted on 
conditions at Yale, 74-75 

War-time Prohibition, 6ff.; 
blocked by brewers, 6-10; 
becomes a law, 12 

Washington (State), prosperity 
following State Prohibition 
in, 5; enforcement in, 228 

Washington, D. C., drunken- 
ness among the youth in, 70- 
71 

Washington Times, bought by 
brewers’ interests, 9 

Weinburg, cited, 119 

Welch, Dr. William H., 16 

“Wet” States, improvement in, 
47, 49-51 

Wheeler, Wayne B., 13 

Whisky, tax on illicit, 93 

Willard, Daniel, 7 

Willebrandt, Assistant Attor- 
ney General Mabel Walker, 
cited on federal convictions, 


INDEX 


90-91; cited on State and 
Federal codperation, 92 

Wilson, Dr. Clarence True, 40 n. 

Wilson, President, action of, on 
Lever Food Bill, 10; War- 
time Prohibition Bill signed 
by, 12 

Wine, control of sacramental 
and domestic, 93; effect of 
use of, on efficiency, 123- 
136; objection to lght, 184, 
209 

Wirgin, cited, 118 

Women, decrease in drunken- 
ness among, 139-140; de- 
crease in deaths from alco- 
holism among, 140-141; brew- 


2595 


ers’ plan for exploiting, 202- 
205 
Women’s Christian Temper- 
ance Union, 12 
Wood, Robert A., quoted on 
women’s drinking places, 204 
Woolley John G., quoted, 88-89 
Work, effect of alcohol on, 120 
World League Against Alcohol- 
ism, 30, 41, 94, 164 


Yale University, drinking con- 
ditions at, 72-77 

Youth, need for educating, 2-4; 
drinking among, 70 ff. 


Zabriskie, George, 16 














Date Due 


ee ee 


ei iat  | 


= @ 





C 
= 





UI 


Speer Library 


| 


| 


Il 


| 


| 
| 


O 
© 
— 
, 
O 
= 
5 ioe 
O 
io) 
N 


Prohibition at its worst 
Princeton Theological Semina 


HV5089 .F54 





